Search

In JAVELIN Bladder 100, results from analyses of overall survival and progression-free survival with avelumab first-line maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in advanced urothelial carcinoma across subgroups defined by the duration of chemotherapy or interval before maintenance were consistent with the overall population results. In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab first-line maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (advanced UC) without progression after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. To report post hoc analyses of subgroups defined by the duration of first-line chemotherapy and interval before maintenance. Patients with advanced UC without progression after four to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and a 4–10-wk interval after chemotherapy (n = 700) were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC or BSC alone. Subgroups were defined by duration (quartile [Q]) and estimated number of cycles of chemotherapy, and interval between chemotherapy and maintenance. The median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms. OS (primary endpoint), PFS, and safety were assessed. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were as follows: by chemotherapy duration—Q3: 0.63 (0.39–1.00); by number of cycles—four cycles: 0.69 (0.48–1.00), five cycles: 0.98 (0.57–1.71), and six cycles: 0.66 (0.47–0.92); and by interval—4–<6 wk: 0.75 (0.54–1.04), 6–<8 wk: 0.67 (0.43–1.06), and 8–10 wk: 0.69 (0.47–1.02). Results were similar for PFS. Safety was similar across subgroups. All analyses were exploratory. Post hoc analyses of OS and PFS in subgroups defined by first-line chemotherapy duration and interval before maintenance were generally consistent with the results in the overall population, with similar safety findings. Prospective trials are warranted to confirm these findings. Avelumab maintenance treatment helped patients with advanced urothelial cancer without disease progression after at least four cycles of prior chemotherapy, and who started maintenance treatment at least 4 wk after chemotherapy, to live longer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA)-positive status was a negative prognostic biomarker in patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery and possibly a predictive biomarker for the overall survival benefit with adjuvant atezolizumab versus observation. The ctDNA-negative status possibly identified patients who experienced an unfavorable risk-benefit profile with adjuvant atezolizumab. Interim results from IMvigor010 showed an overall survival (OS) benefit for adjuvant atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1) versus observation in patients with circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-positive muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC). To report updated OS and safety by ctDNA status. This ad hoc analysis from a global, open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02450331) included intention-to-treat (ITT) population with evaluable cycle 1 day 1 (C1D1) ctDNA samples. Atezolizumab (1200 mg every 3 wk) or observation for ≤1 yr. OS, relapse rates, and safety by ctDNA status were assessed. Among 581 of 809 ITT patients included, 214 (37%) were ctDNA positive. Atezolizumab did not improve OS versus observation in ITT patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.73–1.13]; median follow-up 46.8 mo [interquartile range, 36.1–53.6]). In the observation arm, ctDNA positivity versus negativity was associated with shorter OS (HR 6.3 [95% CI 4.3–9.3]). The ctDNA positivity identified patients with an OS benefit favoring atezolizumab versus observation (HR 0.59 [95% CI 0.42–0.83]). A greater reduction in ctDNA levels with atezolizumab (C3D1) was associated with longer OS (100% clearance, 60.0 mo [95% CI 35.5–not estimable]; 50–99% reduction, 34.3 mo [95% CI 15.2–not estimable]; <50% reduction, 19.9 mo [95% CI 16.4–32.2]). The ctDNA positivity at C1D1 + C3D1 was associated with relapse with greater sensitivity than C1D1 alone (68% vs 57%). Adverse events were more frequent with atezolizumab than with observation, regardless of ctDNA status. A study limitation was its exploratory design. Evidence suggests that ctDNA positivity in MIUC predicts a benefit with atezolizumab. An in-progress prospective study will further evaluate these findings. Among patients with urothelial cancer after surgery, survival was poorer if tumor-derived DNA was detected in their bloodstream; these patients' survival was longer with atezolizumab versus observation. Bloodstream tumor-derived DNA may identify patients who benefit from atezolizumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A durable clinical benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib treatment was observed in patients with previously untreated advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma. These results further support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for this patient population. Previous analyses of KEYNOTE-426, an open-label, phase 3 randomized study, showed superior efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib to sunitinib in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We report results of the final protocol-prespecified analysis of KEYNOTE-426. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 wk per 6-wk cycle). The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v1.1 by a blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). The median study follow-up was 43 (range, 36–51) mo. Benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was maintained for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.60–0.88]), PFS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58–0.80]), and ORR (60% vs 40%). The median DOR was 24 (range, 1.4+ to 43+) versus 15 (range, 2.3–43+) mo in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals emerged. These results support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for patients with previously untreated advanced ccRCC. Extended results of KEYNOTE-426 support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The phase III CheckMate 9ER trial originally included a nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib triplet arm, which was discontinued early due to the evolving treatment landscape for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report an exploratory analysis of patients randomised to the triplet regimen before enrolment discontinuation. Patients with clear-cell aRCC received nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) Q3W for four cycles with once-daily cabozantinib (40 mg), then nivolumab (240 mg) Q2W plus once-daily cabozantinib (40 mg). CheckMate 9ER primary (progression-free survival [PFS] by blinded independent central review [BICR]) and key secondary (overall survival [OS], objective response rate [ORR] by BICR, and safety) endpoints were applied, along with investigator-assessed PFS and ORR. Fifty patients were randomised to the triplet regimen. After a median follow-up of 39.1 months (range, 33.4–44.5), median PFS (95% CI) was 9.9 (5.7–16.8) months by BICR and 13.9 (7.3–24.7) months by investigator; median OS (95% CI) was 37.0 (31.8-not estimable) months. ORR (95% CI) was 44.0% (30.0–58.7; complete response, 8.0%) by BICR and 48.0% (33.7–62.6; all partial responses) by investigator. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.0%, most commonly alanine aminotransferase increased (20.0%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (16.0%), and hepatotoxicity (16.0%). Grade 3–4 hepatic immune-mediated AEs occurred in 40.0%. There were no grade 5 TRAEs. These results suggest that the nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib triplet combination has clinical activity in patients with previously untreated aRCC, although monitoring of overlapping toxicities will be important in future studies of this regimen. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03141177. • Nivolumab + ipilimumab + cabozantinib has clinical activity in untreated aRCC. • Monitoring overlapping toxicities will be important in future studies. • Evaluation of the triplet regimen is ongoing in the phase III COSMIC-313 trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints.Methods: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334.Findings: Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7-36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50-0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (<1%) participant in the placebo group. No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab.Interpretation: Updated results from KEYNOTE-564 support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy as a standard of care for participants with renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence after nephrectomy.Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) who progress after platinum‐based chemotherapy have a poor prognosis, and there is a medical need to improve current treatment options. Ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improved progression‐free survival but not overall survival (OS) in platinum‐refractory advanced UC (RANGE trial; NCT02426125). Here, we report the exposure‐response (ER) of ramucirumab plus docetaxel using data from the RANGE trial. Methods: Pharmacokinetic (PK) samples were collected (cycle 1‐3, 5, 9 [day 1] and 30 days from treatment discontinuation), and PK data were analysed using population PK (popPK) analysis. The minimum ramucirumab concentration after first dose administration (Cmin,1, or trough concentration immediately prior to the second dose) was derived by popPK analysis and used as the exposure parameter for ER analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression models and matched case‐control analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between Cmin,1 and OS. The Cmin,1 relationship with safety was assessed descriptively. Results: Several poor prognostic factors (ECOG 1, haemoglobin concentration <100 g/L, presence of liver metastases) appeared more frequently in the lower exposure quartiles, suggesting a possible disease‐PK interaction. A significant association was identified between Cmin,1 and OS (P =.0108). Higher exposure quartiles were associated with longer survival and smaller hazard ratios compared to placebo. No new exposure‐safety trends were observed within the exposure range (ramucirumab 10 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). Conclusions: This prespecified ER analyses suggests a positive relationship between efficacy and ramucirumab exposure, with an imbalance associated with disease prognostic factors. Further investigation may elucidate a possible disease‐PK relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the primary analysis of CheckMate 9ER, nivolumab plus cabozantinib showed superior progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (median follow-up of 18·1 months). Here, we report extended follow-up of overall survival and updated efficacy and safety.Methods: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was done in 125 hospitals and cancer centres across 18 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed by the investigator, any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk category, and available tumour tissue for PD-L1 testing. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib (40 mg) orally once daily or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily (4 weeks per 6-week cycle). Randomisation, stratified by IMDC risk status, tumour PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, was done by permuted block within each stratum using a block size of four, via an interactive response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint (reported here as the preplanned final analysis according to the protocol). Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This ongoing study, closed to recruitment, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177.Findings: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 328 to the sunitinib group. With an extended follow-up (data cutoff of June 24, 2021; median 32·9 months [IQR 30·4-35·9]), median overall survival was 37·7 months (95% CI 35·5-not estimable) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 34·3 months (29·0-not estimable) in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·55-0·90], p=0·0043) and updated median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (12·8-19·8) versus 8·3 months (7·0-9·7; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·46-0·68], p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 208 (65%) of 320 patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus 172 (54%) of 320 with sunitinib. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (40 [13%] of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 39 [12%] of 320 in the sunitinib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (25 [8%] vs 26 [8%]), and diarrhoea (22 [7%] vs 15 [5%]). Grade 3-4 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 70 (22%) of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 31 (10%) of 320 in the cabozantinib group. One additional treatment-related death occurred with sunitinib (sudden death).Interpretation: With extended follow-up and preplanned final overall survival analysis per protocol, nivolumab plus cabozantinib demonstrated improved efficacy versus sunitinib, further supporting the combination in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the phase 3 METEOR trial, cabozantinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus everolimus in patients with advanced RCC after prior antiangiogenic therapy. Methods: In this exploratory analysis, plasma biomarkers from baseline and week 4 from 621 of 658 randomized patients were analyzed for CA9, HGF, MET, GAS6, AXL, VEGF, VEGFR2, and IL-8. PFS and OS were analyzed by baseline biomarker levels as both dichotomized and continuous variables using univariate and multivariable methods. For on-treatment changes, PFS and OS were analyzed using fold change in biomarker levels at week 4. Biomarkers were considered prognostic if p < 0.05 and predictive if pinteraction < 0.05 for the interaction between treatment and biomarker. Results: Hazard ratios for PFS and OS favored cabozantinib versus everolimus for both low and high baseline levels of all biomarkers (hazard ratios ≤0.78). In univariate analyses, low baseline HGF, AXL, and VEGF were prognostic for improvements in both PFS and OS with cabozantinib, and low HGF was prognostic for improvements in both PFS and OS with everolimus. Low AXL was predictive of relative improvement in PFS for cabozantinib versus everolimus. Results were generally consistent when baseline biomarkers were expressed as continuous variables, although none were predictive of benefit with treatment. In multivariable analysis, low baseline HGF was independently prognostic for improved PFS for both cabozantinib and everolimus; low HGF, GAS6, and VEGF were independently prognostic for improved OS with cabozantinib. No biomarkers were independently prognostic for OS with everolimus. On-treatment increases in some biomarkers appeared prognostic for PFS or OS with cabozantinib in univariate analyses; however, none were independently prognostic in multivariable analysis. Conclusions: PFS and OS were improved with cabozantinib versus everolimus at high and low baseline levels of all biomarkers. Low baseline HGF was consistently identified as a prognostic biomarker for improved PFS or OS with cabozantinib or everolimus, supporting further prospective evaluation of the prognostic significance of HGF in advanced RCC. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01865747 (registered on 05/31/2013). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate whether pT1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be followed differently after partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) based on a retrospective analysis of a multicentre database (RECUR). Subjects: A retrospective study was conducted in 3380 patients treated for nonmetastatic RCC between January 2006 and December 2011 across 15 centres from 10 countries, as part of the RECUR database project. For patients with pT1 clear‐cell RCC, patterns of recurrence were compared between RN and PN according to recurrence site. Univariate and multivariate models were used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and recurrence‐free survival (RFS) and cancer‐specific mortality (CSM). Results: From the database 1995 patients were identified as low‐risk patients (pT1, pN0, pNx), of whom 1055 (52.9%) underwent PN. On multivariate analysis, features associated with worse RFS included tumour size (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14–1.39; P < 0.001), nuclear grade (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.73–3.08; P < 0.001), tumour necrosis (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03–2.3; P = 0.037), vascular invasion (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3–4.4; P = 0.005) and positive surgical margins (HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.3–8.5; P < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier analysis of CSM revealed that the survival of patients with recurrence after PN was significantly better than those with recurrence after RN (P = 0.02). While the above‐mentioned risk factors were associated with prognosis, type of surgery alone was not an independent prognostic variable for RFS nor CSM. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study. Conclusion: Our results showed that follow‐up protocols should not rely solely on stage and type of primary surgery. An optimized regimen should also include validated risk factors rather than type of surgery alone to select the best imaging method and to avoid unnecessary imaging. A follow‐up of more than 3 years should be considered in patients with pT1 tumours after RN. A novel follow‐up strategy is proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the phase 3 METEOR trial, cabozantinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus everolimus in patients with advanced RCC after prior antiangiogenic therapy. Methods: In this exploratory analysis, plasma biomarkers from baseline and week 4 from 621 of 658 randomized patients were analyzed for CA9, HGF, MET, GAS6, AXL, VEGF, VEGFR2, and IL-8. PFS and OS were analyzed by baseline biomarker levels as both dichotomized and continuous variables using univariate and multivariable methods. For on-treatment changes, PFS and OS were analyzed using fold change in biomarker levels at week 4. Biomarkers were considered prognostic if p < 0.05 and predictive if pinteraction < 0.05 for the interaction between treatment and biomarker. Results: Hazard ratios for PFS and OS favored cabozantinib versus everolimus for both low and high baseline levels of all biomarkers (hazard ratios ≤0.78). In univariate analyses, low baseline HGF, AXL, and VEGF were prognostic for improvements in both PFS and OS with cabozantinib, and low HGF was prognostic for improvements in both PFS and OS with everolimus. Low AXL was predictive of relative improvement in PFS for cabozantinib versus everolimus. Results were generally consistent when baseline biomarkers were expressed as continuous variables, although none were predictive of benefit with treatment. In multivariable analysis, low baseline HGF was independently prognostic for improved PFS for both cabozantinib and everolimus; low HGF, GAS6, and VEGF were independently prognostic for improved OS with cabozantinib. No biomarkers were independently prognostic for OS with everolimus. On-treatment increases in some biomarkers appeared prognostic for PFS or OS with cabozantinib in univariate analyses; however, none were independently prognostic in multivariable analysis. Conclusions: PFS and OS were improved with cabozantinib versus everolimus at high and low baseline levels of all biomarkers. Low baseline HGF was consistently identified as a prognostic biomarker for improved PFS or OS with cabozantinib or everolimus, supporting further prospective evaluation of the prognostic significance of HGF in advanced RCC. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01865747 (registered on 05/31/2013). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the phase 3 METEOR trial, cabozantinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus everolimus in patients with advanced RCC after prior antiangiogenic therapy.Methods: In this exploratory analysis, plasma biomarkers from baseline and week 4 from 621 of 658 randomized patients were analyzed for CA9, HGF, MET, GAS6, AXL, VEGF, VEGFR2, and IL-8. PFS and OS were analyzed by baseline biomarker levels as both dichotomized and continuous variables using univariate and multivariable methods. For on-treatment changes, PFS and OS were analyzed using fold change in biomarker levels at week 4. Biomarkers were considered prognostic if p < 0.05 and predictive if pinteraction < 0.05 for the interaction between treatment and biomarker.Results: Hazard ratios for PFS and OS favored cabozantinib versus everolimus for both low and high baseline levels of all biomarkers (hazard ratios ≤0.78). In univariate analyses, low baseline HGF, AXL, and VEGF were prognostic for improvements in both PFS and OS with cabozantinib, and low HGF was prognostic for improvements in both PFS and OS with everolimus. Low AXL was predictive of relative improvement in PFS for cabozantinib versus everolimus. Results were generally consistent when baseline biomarkers were expressed as continuous variables, although none were predictive of benefit with treatment. In multivariable analysis, low baseline HGF was independently prognostic for improved PFS for both cabozantinib and everolimus; low HGF, GAS6, and VEGF were independently prognostic for improved OS with cabozantinib. No biomarkers were independently prognostic for OS with everolimus. On-treatment increases in some biomarkers appeared prognostic for PFS or OS with cabozantinib in univariate analyses; however, none were independently prognostic in multivariable analysis.Conclusions: PFS and OS were improved with cabozantinib versus everolimus at high and low baseline levels of all biomarkers. Low baseline HGF was consistently identified as a prognostic biomarker for improved PFS or OS with cabozantinib or everolimus, supporting further prospective evaluation of the prognostic significance of HGF in advanced RCC.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01865747 (registered on 05/31/2013). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors are active in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but positive randomised data supporting their use as a first-line treatment are lacking. In this study we assessed outcomes with first-line pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma.Methods: KEYNOTE-361 is a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients aged at least 18 years, with untreated, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of up to 2. Eligible patients were enrolled from 201 medical centres in 21 countries and randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a maximum of 35 cycles plus intravenous chemotherapy (gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2] on days 1 and 8 and investigator's choice of cisplatin [70 mg/m2] or carboplatin [area under the curve 5] on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) for a maximum of six cycles, pembrolizumab alone, or chemotherapy alone, stratified by choice of platinum therapy and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to the treatment assignment or CPS. At protocol-specified final analysis, sequential hypothesis testing began with superiority of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the total population (all patients randomly allocated to a treatment) for the dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (p value boundary 0·0019), assessed by masked, independent central review, and overall survival (p value boundary 0·0142), followed by non-inferiority and superiority of overall survival for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the patient population with CPS of at least 10 and in the total population (also a primary endpoint). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). This study is completed and is no longer enrolling patients, and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02853305.Findings: Between Oct 19, 2016 and June 29, 2018, 1010 patients were enrolled and allocated to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n=351), pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=307), or chemotherapy alone (n=352). Median follow-up was 31·7 months (IQR 27·7-36·0). Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy did not significantly improve progression-free survival, with a median progression-free survival of 8·3 months (95% CI 7·5-8·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 7·1 months (6·4-7·9) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·65-0·93; p=0·0033), or overall survival, with a median overall survival of 17·0 months (14·5-19·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·3 months (12·3-16·7) in the chemotherapy group (0·86, 0·72-1·02; p=0·0407). No further formal statistical hypothesis testing was done. In analyses of overall survival with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (now exploratory based on hierarchical statistical testing), overall survival was similar between these treatment groups, both in the total population (15·6 months [95% CI 12·1-17·9] with pembrolizumab vs 14·3 months [12·3-16·7] with chemotherapy; HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·77-1·11) and the population with CPS of at least 10 (16·1 months [13·6-19·9] with pembrolizumab vs 15·2 months [11·6-23·3] with chemotherapy; 1·01, 0·77-1·32). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event attributed to study treatment was anaemia with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients) or chemotherapy alone (112 [33%] of 342 patients), and diarrhoea, fatigue, and hyponatraemia (each affecting four [1%] of 302 patients) with pembrolizumab alone. Six (1%) of 1010 patients died due to an adverse event attributed to study treatment; two patients in each treatment group. One each occurred due to cardiac arrest and device-related sepsis in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group, one each due to cardiac failure and malignant neoplasm progression in the pembrolizumab group, and one each due to myocardial infarction and ischaemic colitis in the chemotherapy group.Interpretation: The addition of pembrolizumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not significantly improve efficacy and should not be widely adopted for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma.Funding: Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy as second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cancer (mRCC) has not been evaluated prospectively. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab following disease progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy in patients with mRCC. IMmotion150 was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of patients with untreated mRCC. Patients randomized to the atezolizumab or sunitinib arm who had investigator-assessed progression as per RECIST 1.1 could be treated with second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab. Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (IV) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 wk following disease progression on either atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy. The secondary endpoints analyzed during the second-line part of IMmotion150 included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. PFS was examined using Kaplan-Meier methods. Fifty-nine patients in the atezolizumab arm and 78 in the sunitinib arm were eligible, and 103 initiated second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezolizumab arm, n = 44; sunitinib arm, n = 59). ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 27% (19–37%). The median PFS (95% CI) from the start of second line was 8.7 (5.6–13.7) mo. The median event follow-up duration was 19.4 (12.9–21.9) mo among the 25 patients without a PFS event. Eighty-six (83%) patients had treatment-related adverse events; 31 of 103 (30%) had grade 3/4 events. Limitations were the small sample size and selection for progressors. The atezolizumab + bevacizumab combination had activity and was tolerable in patients with progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib. Further studies are needed to investigate sequencing strategies in mRCC. Patients with advanced kidney cancer whose disease had worsened during treatment with atezolizumab or sunitinib began second-line treatment with atezolizumab + bevacizumab. Tumors shrank in more than one-quarter of patients treated with this combination, and side effects were manageable. Patients with metastatic renal clear cell carcinoma whose disease progressed on atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy with cancer immunotherapy demonstrated efficacy after failure of immune checkpoint or VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have poor overall survival after platinum-containing chemotherapy and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor treatment.Methods: We conducted a global, open-label, phase 3 trial of enfortumab vedotin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-containing chemotherapy and had had disease progression during or after treatment with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or investigator-chosen chemotherapy (standard docetaxel, paclitaxel, or vinflunine), administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was overall survival.Results: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization; 301 were assigned to receive enfortumab vedotin and 307 to receive chemotherapy. As of July 15, 2020, a total of 301 deaths had occurred (134 in the enfortumab vedotin group and 167 in the chemotherapy group). At the prespecified interim analysis, the median follow-up was 11.1 months. Overall survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median overall survival, 12.88 vs. 8.97 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.89; P = 0.001). Progression-free survival was also longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median progression-free survival, 5.55 vs. 3.71 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (93.9% in the enfortumab vedotin group and 91.8% in the chemotherapy group); the incidence of events of grade 3 or higher was also similar in the two groups (51.4% and 49.8%, respectively).Conclusions: Enfortumab vedotin significantly prolonged survival as compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-based treatment and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and Seagen; EV-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03474107.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma.Methods: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24.Findings: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9-43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4-17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4-15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71-1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1-18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9-14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (<1%) patient in the chemotherapy group (acute kidney injury).Interpretation: This study did not meet either of its coprimary endpoints. Further research to identify the patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma who benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or in combination regimens, is warranted.Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.Methods: In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331.Findings: Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis.Interpretation: With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma.Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma.Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821.Findings: Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11·2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7·7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·57-0·96]; p=0·0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0·93 (0·76-1·14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation.Interpretation: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Genentech Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the phase 3 METEOR trial, cabozantinib improved progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), after prior antiangiogenic therapy.Methods: Outcomes were evaluated for subgroups defined by prior therapy with sunitinib or pazopanib as the only prior VEGFR inhibitor, or prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy.Results: For the prior sunitinib subgroup (N = 267), median PFS for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 9.1 versus 3.7 months (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32-0.59), ORR was 16% versus 3%, and median OS was 21.4 versus 16.5 months (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.93). For the prior pazopanib subgroup (N = 171), median PFS for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 7.4 versus 5.1 months (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.99), ORR was 19% versus 4%, and median OS was 22.0 versus 17.5 months (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42-1.04). For prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy (N = 32), median PFS was not reached for cabozantinib versus 4.1 months for everolimus (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.65), ORR was 22% versus 0%, and median OS was not reached versus 16.3 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21-1.52).Conclusions: Cabozantinib was associated with improved clinical outcomes versus everolimus in patients with advanced RCC, irrespective of prior therapy, including checkpoint inhibitor therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The randomised phase III clinical trial Checkmate-214 showed a survival superiority for the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab when compared with the previous standard of care in first-line metastatic/advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (Escudier B, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al. CheckMate 214: efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib for treatment-naïve advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, including IMDC risk and PD-L1 expression subgroups. LBA5, ESMO 2017, 2017). These results change the frontline standard of care for this disease and have implications for the selection of subsequent therapies. For this reason the European Association of Urology RCC guidelines have been updated. Patient summary The European Association of Urology guidelines will be updated based on the results of the phase III Checkmate-214 clinical trial. The trial showed superior survival for a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab (IN), compared with the previous standard of care, in intermediate- and poor-risk patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. When IN is not safe or feasible, alternative agents such as sunitinib, pazopanib, and cabozantinib should be considered. Furthermore, at present, the data from the trial are immature in favourable-risk patients. Therefore, sunitinib or pazopanib remains the favoured agent for this subgroup of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few options exist for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus chemotherapy in this patient population.Methods: We conducted this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial (IMvigor211) at 217 academic medical centres and community oncology practices mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice and web response system with a permuted block design (block size of four), to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg or chemotherapy (physician's choice: vinflunine 320 mg/m2, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, or 75 mg/m2 docetaxel) intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (expression on <1% [IC0] or 1% to <5% [IC1] of tumour-infiltrating immune cells vs ≥5% of tumour-infiltrating immune cells [IC2/3]), chemotherapy type (vinflunine vs taxanes), liver metastases (yes vs no), and number of prognostic factors (none vs one, two, or three). Patients and investigators were aware of group allocation. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. The primary endpoint of overall survival was tested hierarchically in prespecified populations: IC2/3, followed by IC1/2/3, followed by the intention-to-treat population. This study, which is ongoing but not recruiting participants, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02302807.Findings: Between Jan 13, 2015, and Feb 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 931 patients from 198 sites to receive atezolizumab (n=467) or chemotherapy (n=464). In the IC2/3 population (n=234), overall survival did not differ significantly between patients in the atezolizumab group and those in the chemotherapy group (median 11·1 months [95% CI 8·6-15·5; n=116] vs 10·6 months [8·4-12·2; n=118]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·63-1·21; p=0·41), thus precluding further formal statistical analysis. Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment groups in the IC2/3 population: 26 (23%) of 113 evaluable patients had an objective response in the atezolizumab group compared with 25 (22%) of 116 patients in the chemotherapy group. Duration of response was numerically longer in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median 15·9 months [95% CI 10·4 to not estimable] vs 8·3 months [5·6-13·2]; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·26-1·26). In the intention-to-treat population, patients receiving atezolizumab had fewer grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events than did those receiving chemotherapy (91 [20%] of 459 vs 189 [43%] of 443 patients), and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (34 [7%] vs 78 [18%] patients).Interpretation: Atezolizumab was not associated with significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing PD-L1 (IC2/3). However, the safety profile for atezolizumab was favourable compared with chemotherapy, Exploratory analysis of the intention-to-treat population showed well-tolerated, durable responses in line with previous phase 2 data for atezolizumab in this setting.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cancer-immunity cycle provides a framework to understand the series of events that generate anti-cancer immune responses. It emphasizes the iterative nature of the response where the killing of tumor cells by T cells initiates subsequent rounds of antigen presentation and T cell stimulation, maintaining active immunity and adapting it to tumor evolution. Any step of the cycle can become rate-limiting, rendering the immune system unable to control tumor growth. Here, we update the cancer-immunity cycle based on the remarkable progress of the past decade. Understanding the mechanism of checkpoint inhibition has evolved, as has our view of dendritic cells in sustaining anti-tumor immunity. We additionally account for the role of the tumor microenvironment in facilitating, not just suppressing, the anti-cancer response, and discuss the importance of considering a tumor's immunological phenotype, the "immunotype". While these new insights add some complexity to the cycle, they also provide new targets for research and therapeutic intervention. The cancer-immunity cycle provides a framework to understand the events that generate anti-cancer immune responses. Mellman, Chen, Powles, and Turley consider the last 10 years of research in cancer immunology and immunotherapy and review the progress in understanding each step of the cancer-immunity cycle, identifying challenges and opportunities for the next decade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Everolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor used in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)–refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). It acts on only part of the mTOR complex (TORC1 alone). In vitro data support the use of mTOR inhibitors with broader activity (TORC1 and TORC2). Objective The purpose of this study was to determine whether combined TORC1 and TORC2 inhibition with AZD2014 has superior activity to everolimus in VEGF-refractory clear cell mRCC. Design, setting, and participants Patients with measurable mRCC and VEGF-refractory disease were eligible for this trial. Intervention Starting in February 2013, patients were randomised (1:1) to AZD2014 (50 mg twice daily) or everolimus (10 mg once daily) until progression of disease at 10 centres across the United Kingdom. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point and was compared using the stratified log-rank test. Secondary end points included tolerability, response rates, overall survival (OS), and pharmacokinetics (PK) analysis. The study was planned to recruit 120 patients. Results and limitations Recruitment into the trial was stopped early (June 2014) due to lack of efficacy of AZD2014. At that point, 49 patients were randomised (26 to AZD2014 and 23 to everolimus). The PFS for AZD2014 and everolimus was 1.8 and 4.6 mo, respectively (hazard ratio: 2.8 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2–6.5]; p = 0.01). Progression of disease as the best response to therapy was 69% for AZD2014 and 13% for everolimus ( p < 0.001). Grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 35% of AZD2014 and 48% of everolimus patients ( p = 0.3). Only 4% of patients stopped AZD2014 due to AEs. PK analysis suggested concentrations of AZD2014 were compatible with the therapeutic range. Final stratified OS hazard ratio at the time of trial closure (January 2015) was 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1–8.4; p < 0.02). Conclusions The PFS and OS of AZD2014 were inferior to everolimus in this setting despite acceptable AE and PK profiles. Patient summary There is a strong rationale for testing mTOR inhibitors with a broader spectrum of activity than everolimus in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. AZD2014 is such an agent, but in this study, it was inferior to everolimus despite its attractive toxicity profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surgical complete resection is the only curative treatment of renal cell carcinoma including patients with locally advanced disease and those with limited metastatic disease. Patients at high risk of recurrence after complete resection might theoretically benefit from adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatment strategies to prolong disease-free survival and ultimately overall survival. Another rationale for using targeted therapy includes downsizing/downstaging of surgically complex locally advanced renal cell carcinoma to facilitate complete resection or primary tumors to allow for nephron-sparing strategies. Unfortunately, a considerable percentage of patients are diagnosed with metastatic disease at first presentation. Although large population-based studies consistently show a survival benefit after cytoreductive nephrectomy in the targeted therapy era, confounding factors preclude definite conclusions for this heterogeneous patient group until ongoing phase III trials are published. Presurgical targeted therapy has been proposed to identify patients with clinical benefit and potentially long-term survival after cytoreductive nephrectomy. Recently, the use of targeted therapy before or after local treatment of metastases has been reported in small retrospective series. The present review revisits the current evidence base of targeted therapy in combination with surgery for the various disease stages in renal cell carcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Salvage high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) along with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) plays an important role in the management of patients with germ cell tumors (GCT) and progression after first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In this review, the authors will discuss the history of HDCT as salvage management of patients with GCT, improvement in efficacy and safety over the past 25 years, prognostic factors for outcome, and the conflicting data on the optimal initial salvage approach. Methods The authors performed a PubMed search of HDCT and GCT to identify articles relevant to this review. After discussion, the articles felt to have contributed most notably to the field were selected for inclusion and summarized. Results Depending on patient selection and timing of HDCT, durable remission rates with salvage HDCT range between 30% and 63%. The combination of carboplatin and etoposide is the standard regimen for the high-dose cycles with more variability in the regimens used for stem cell mobilization. Adding a third agent, particularly an oxazophosphorine (cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide), may add toxicity without increasing efficacy. In addition, sequential (2 or 3 cycle) HDCT regimens appear more effective and safer than single-cycle HDCT regimens. The optimal initial salvage approach (HDCT or conventional-dose chemotherapy) remains an unanswered question and highly controversial. Conclusions Salvage HDCT with ASCT can cure a significant proportion of patients with GCT and progression after one or more lines of cisplatin-based chemotherapy and thus plays an important role in the contemporary management of high-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wang is employed by Exelixis; and has stock/ownership interests with Exelixis.Dr. Powles has received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; has a consulting or advisory role with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; has received research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; and has received travel/accommodation/other expenses from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche.Dr. Powles has received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; has a consulting or advisory role with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; has received research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; and has received travel/accommodation/other expenses from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche.Competing interestsDr. [Extracted from the article]

Drug-induced liver chemistry abnormalities, primarily transaminase elevations, are commonly observed in pazopanib-treated patients. This meta-analysis characterises liver chemistry abnormalities associated with pazopanib. Data of pazopanib-treated patients from nine prospective trials were integrated ( N = 2080). Laboratory datasets were used to characterise the incidence, timing, recovery and patterns of liver events, and subsequent rechallenge with pazopanib. Severe cases of liver chemistry abnormalities were clinically reviewed. Multivariate analyses identified predisposing factors. Twenty percent of patients developed elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) >3×ULN. Incidence of peak ALT >3–5×ULN, >5–8×ULN, >8–20×ULN and >20×ULN was 8%, 5%, 5% and 1%, respectively. Median time to onset for all events was 42 days; 91% of events were observed within 18 weeks. Recovery rates based on peak ALT >3–5×ULN, >5–8×ULN, >8-20×ULN and >20×ULN were 91%, 90%, 90% and 64%, respectively. Median time from onset to recovery was 30 days, but longer in patients without dose interruption. Based on clinical review, no deaths were associated with drug-induced liver injury. Overall, 38% of rechallenged patients had ALT elevation recurrence, with 9-day median time to recurrence. Multivariate analysis showed that older age was associated with development of ALT >8×ULN. There was no correlation between hypertension and transaminitis. Our data support the current guidelines on regular liver chemistry tests after initiation of pazopanib, especially during the first 9 or 10 weeks, and also demonstrate the safety of rechallenge with pazopanib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There have been no major advances for the treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) in the last 30 years. Chemotherapy is still the standard of care. Patient outcomes, especially for those in whom chemotherapy is not effective or is poorly tolerated, remain poor. One hallmark of UBC is the presence of high rates of somatic mutations. These alterations may enhance the ability of the host immune system to recognize tumour cells as foreign owing to an increased number of antigens. However, these cancers may also elude immune surveillance and eradication through the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1; also called CD274 or B7-H1) in the tumour microenvironment. Therefore, we examined the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A, a systemic cancer immunotherapy, for the treatment of metastatic UBC. MPDL3280A is a high-affinity engineered human anti-PD-L1 monoclonal immunoglobulin-G1 antibody that inhibits the interaction of PD-L1 with PD-1 (PDCD1) and B7.1 (CD80). Because PD-L1 is expressed on activated T cells, MPDL3280A was engineered with a modification in the Fc domain that eliminates antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity at clinically relevant doses to prevent the depletion of T cells expressing PD-L1. Here we show that MPDL3280A has noteworthy activity in metastatic UBC. Responses were often rapid, with many occurring at the time of the first response assessment (6 weeks) and nearly all were ongoing at the data cutoff. This phase I expansion study, with an adaptive design that allowed for biomarker-positive enriched cohorts, demonstrated that tumours expressing PD-L1-positive tumour-infiltrating immune cells had particularly high response rates. Moreover, owing to the favourable toxicity profile, including a lack of renal toxicity, patients with UBC, who are often older and have a higher incidence of renal impairment, may be better able to tolerate MPDL3280A versus chemotherapy. These results suggest that MPDL3280A may have an important role in treating UBC-the drug received breakthrough designation status by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Everolimus (mammalian target of rapmaycin (mTOR) inhibitor) and dovitinib (vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF-2) inhibitor) demonstrate activity in metastatic clear cell renal cancer. The combination of these agents has a broad spectrum of relevant activity. The combination is explored in this phase Ib study. Methods Patients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer who have failed VEGF targeted therapy were eligible. Up to four cohorts of three to six patients (3+3 design) were treated with escalating doses of everolimus and dovitinib. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). An expansion cohort (n=15) was investigated to obtain additional efficacy information. Sequential fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) was used as a surrogate marker of response. Results Overall 18 patients were recruited into the study. Fifteen patients received the MTD, which was everolimus 5mg orally (PO) once daily (OD) and dovitinib 200mg PO day 1-5/7. The MTD was associated with toxicity, which included fatigue, mucositis and diarrhoea in 73%, 53% and 53% (Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) grade 1-4) of patients, respectively. Frequent biochemical abnormalities occurred (such as hypertriglyceridaemia in 67%). Higher doses of the combination were not tolerable due to grade 3 fatigue in 2/3 patients and grade 3 nausea in 1/3 patients within 1month of therapy. The response rate at the MDT was 1/15 (7%) while the progression free survival for the MTD was 7months (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-11months). Pharmacokinetic data at the MTD showed stable kinetics with time. Conclusion Dovitinib and everolimus had modest activity, but did not meet all of the planned efficacy end-points. Fatigue was the dose limiting toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Both sunitinib and pazopanib are widely used as first line therapy in metastatic renal cancer (mRCC). The efficacy of these agents appears similar but they may have distinct toxicity profiles. In this study we compare the severity of symptomatic and asymptomatic toxicity associated with sunitinib and pazopanib. Methods: Two sequential prospective single arm phase II studies investigated either 12weeks of sunitinib (n =43) or pazopanib (n =34) prior to nephrectomy in untreated mRCC. Toxicity was defined as either symptomatic (hand and foot syndrome, mucositis, nausea, fatigue, diarrhoea, oedema, headache, pain, anorexia and change in taste) or asymptomatic (liver toxicity or haematological toxicity). Pazopanib (800mg once daily (OD)) and sunitinib (50mg 4/2) were given. Regular Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) toxicity assessment was performed during the first 12weeks of therapy. Results: There was no significant difference in the overall number of toxic events (grade 1–4) for sunitinib and pazopanib (mean number of toxic events/patients: 1.97 versus 1.96: p >0.05). Increased grade 2–4 symptomatic toxicity events occurred with sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11–2.56] p <0.03). Sunitinib was associated with an increased grade 2–4 mucositis (16% versus 0% p =0.02) and fatigue (42% versus 15% p =0.01). Pazopanib was associated with more frequent grade 1 diarrhoea (39% versus 12%: p =0.03). Dose reductions for symptomatic toxicity occurred more frequently with sunitinib (26% versus 6% p <0.05). There was no difference in the occurrence of asymptomatic toxicity. Conclusion: This indirect analysis suggests sunitinib and pazopanib have distinct toxicity profiles which may help guide patient’s choice. Further comparative data from randomised trials are awaited. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is controversial. Objective: To determine the outcome of patients with metastatic ccRCC who receive sunitinib prior to planned nephrectomy. Design, setting, and participants: The study combined the data from two prospective phase 2 studies that assessed upfront sunitinib (12–16 wk) prior to nephrectomy in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Sunitinib was discontinued during the perioperative period (median: 29 d). Intervention: Sunitinib 50mg in six weekly cycles (4 wk on, 2 wk off). Measurements: Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results and limitations: Twenty-one patients (32%) had Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) poor-risk disease; 45 (68%) had intermediate-risk disease. Nephrectomy was not performed in 19 (29%), most commonly due to disease progression (n =12). The PFS for the cohort was 6.3 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1–8.5). Seventeen (36%) patients progressed during the treatment break, 13 (76%) of whom stabilised upon reinitiating of sunitinib. The OS for the cohort was 15.2 mo (95% CI, 10.3–NA). The OS for the intermediate MSKCC risk group was significantly longer than that for the poor-risk group (26.0 mo [95% CI, 13.6–NA] and 9.0 mo [95% CI, 5.8–20.5], respectively; p <0.01). In multivariate analysis, progression of disease prior to planned nephrectomy (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.34; 95% CI, 3.17–13.27), high Fuhrman grade (HR 3.27; 95% CI, 1.38–7.72), and MSKCC poor risk at diagnosis (HR 4.75; 95% CI, 2.05–11.02) were associated with short survival (p <0.01). However, in the absence of randomised studies it is not possible to determine if this approach is beneficial. Conclusions: Upfront sunitinib prior to planned nephrectomy in intermediate-risk disease is associated with a median survival of >2 yr despite frequent progression during treatment break. Progression in metastatic sites prior to planned surgery and MSKCC poor-risk disease was associated with a poor outcome. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Sunitinib is standard first-line therapy for metastatic clear cell renal cancer (MCRC). It is associated with leucopenia; however, its effects on specific immune cell subsets are unclear. Alterations in immune cell subsets may contribute to tumour progression. Methods: Lymphocyte subsets (CD3, 4, 8, 19 and 56) were measured in 43 untreated MCRC patients who received sunitinib. The protocol included a structured treatment interruption of 5 weeks. Cell populations were measured at specific time points during sunitinib treatment and the treatment break. Results: Sunitinib was associated with significant declines in total leucocyte (-48%), neutrophil (-62%), CD3 total T cell (-31%) and CD4 counts (32%; p < 0.05). There was no significant change in CD19 B lymphocyte, CD8 or CD56 natural killer cells. During the sunitinib-free interval, all parameters recovered to baseline. No patients developed opportunistic infections or neutropenic sepsis. The level of specific immune subsets at presentation or occurrence of a fall in specific counts had an effect on progression-free survival (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Sunitinib is associated with reversible inhibition of specific lymphocyte subsets which has implications for the immunological control of MCRC and its use in combination with other agents. Despite suppressive effects, there was no evidence of predisposition to immune suppressive-related infection. Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author discusses the use of targeted therapy as a replacement for immunotherapy in treating patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in Great Britain. The author states that the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) is considering the cost and effectiveness of the drug. Also mentioned are the clinical issues such as the commencement and discontinuity of using the therapy and how to treat patients who are not qualified for sunitinib.

Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) may be of prognostic value in renal cell cancer (RCC). Gene amplification of EGFR was investigated in a cohort of 315 patients with advanced RCC from a previously reported randomised study. Using fluorescent in situ hybridisation, only 2 patients (0.6%) had gene amplification; therefore gene amplification is of no prognostic value in RCC. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Germ cell tumours (GCT) can become resistant to cisplatin, which is associated with a relatively poor prognosis. Oxaliplatin and satraplatin have been developed to overcome cisplatin resistance in other cancers, but their effect in cisplatin resistant (cisR) GCTs is unclear. In this work we address this issue by comparing their efficacy in three paired sensitive and cisR GCT cell lines. Three established cisplatin sensitive (cisS) and resistant cell line pairs were used (GCT27, GCT27r: SUSA, SUSAr: 833k, 833kr). Viability was assessed using a luciferase based ATP assay and EC50 and EC80 concentrations were calculated. Western blot analysis and flow cytometry was used for further assessment. Sensitivity to the three platinum compounds was broadly similar in the three cisS lines GCT cell lines (EC50 = 0.27–0.51 μM for cisplatin, 0.52–0.79 μM for oxaliplatin, 0.31–1.26 μM for satraplatin). EC50 values for cisplatin in the three cisR sub lines were 1.8- to 3.8-fold higher than in the sensitive parental lines. Cross resistance to satraplatin and oxaliplatin occurred in all three cisR cell lines (resistance factor 1.9–4.4), with the exception of oxaliplatin in the 833Kr (resistance factor 0.9). Differences in the effect of specific drugs on cell cycle distribution, p53, p21 and MDM2 were observed. These data suggest that satraplatin and oxaliplatin could theoretically be used in chemo-naive GCTs and support the further clinical evaluation of these agents in this setting. The mechanism of cross resistance to these drugs appears multifactorial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rapidly progressive invariably lethal tumor. Treatment options remain limited and the outcome in relapsed disease is poor warranting new therapeutic options. Following our previous experience in the first-line setting, we conducted a phase 2 open-label non-comparative study to assess the safety and efficacy of weekly vinorelbine chemotherapy, each cycle consisting of 30mg/m2 for 6 weeks, in patients with previous exposure to chemotherapy. In 63 individuals with relapsed MPM who had not received previous vinorelbine, we observed an objective response rate of 16% and an overall survival of 9.6 months (95% confidence interval 7.3–11.8 months). The main grade III/IV toxicity observed was neutropenia and toxicity was similar to weekly vinorelbine when used in the first-line setting. Weekly vinorelbine appeared to have a reasonable response rate with an acceptable toxicity profile in the second-line treatment of MPM. Its use should be prospectively evaluated in a randomised trial in the first or second-line therapy of MPM. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Oxaliplatin is a 3rd generation platinum analogue, which is active in a broad spectrum of tumours. Clinical trials using this drug in bladder cancer are underway, but not yet reported. There are currently no in vitro data regarding oxaliplatin in bladder cancer. Therefore, this study compares the efficacy of oxaliplatin with cisplatin and carboplatin, which are both used widely in this tumour type, in bladder cancer cell lines. Method: The efficacy of oxaliplatin, carboplatin and cisplatin were compared in 4 bladder cancer cell lines (5637, J82, HT1197 and 253J). Cell parameters including cell number, viability and apoptosis were assessed after 3 days of drug exposure. The effects of the drugs on the cell cycle were also observed. Results: Overall cisplatin was the most potent at inducing cell death (IC50 11.5–70.6 μM). Oxaliplatin was the 2nd most potent drug (IC50 15.2–126.3 μM) and carboplatin the least effective (IC50 75.4–137.8 μM). Carboplatin was significantly less potent at inducing cell death than the other two drugs in all 4 cell lines. Carboplatin was also inferior at inducing apoptosis in 3 of the 4 cell lines. All three drugs had a similar effect on the cell cycle, causing an initial G2 block. Conclusions: These data suggest that oxaliplatin is a potent agent in bladder cancer cell lines and is superior to carboplatin in this in vitro setting. It justifies the clinical studies using oxaliplatin that are underway. Copyright © 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The risk/benefit ratio of a number of palliative and (neo)adjuvant treatments should be reconsidered during the COVID-19 pandemic. We provide treatment advice as a pragmatic perspective on the risk/benefit ratio in specific clinical scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authors from London looked at patients diagnosed with germ cell tumours of the testis who presented between 1983 and 2002. They found that there was an overall increase in the percentage of patients presenting with stage I seminoma, with a significant reduction in the size of the primary tumour. The authors do not feel that they can clarify the reason for these changes. There is a 20-year follow-up of patients who had tumours of the ureter and renal pelvis treated with resection and renal autotransplantation. In this fascinating series from Gothenberg, it was found that in patients with a normal contralateral kidney, resection and autotransplantation was not indicated. It was possibly beneficial in patients with solitary kidneys, but only after other treatments have been considered. To prospectively investigate the presentation of germ cell tumours (GCTs) of the testis in terms of stage or histology, as the incidence of this disease in increasing. Patients diagnosed with GCT of the testis between 1983 and 2002 were categorised into three periods depending on the date of diagnosis of the GCT, and the presentational characteristics assessed. There was a significant increase in the proportion of patients presenting with stage I disease (59% to 78%) and seminoma (43% to 58%) over this period. There was also a significant reduction in the size of the primary tumour (5 to 4 cm). A greater proportion of patients with GCT are presenting with stage I seminoma, the reasons for which are unclear, although earlier diagnosis through improved awareness of GCT may be important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]