Is Axitinib Still a Valid Option for mRCC in the Second-Line Setting? Prognostic Factor Analyses From the AXIS Trial

BackgroundAxitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with sunitinib in the AXIS trial. We report post hoc analyses evaluating patient subgroups that may benefit more from axitinib in this setting.Patients and MethodsAXIS was an open-label randomized phase 3 trial (NCT00678392) in mRCC patients with disease that failed to respond to one prior systemic therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses evaluated potential prognostic factors for improved PFS and overall survival (OS) after sunitinib. PFS and OS of axitinib versus sorafenib were assessed within subgroups identified according to these factors.ResultsOf 723 patients, 389 received first-line sunitinib; 194 and 195 were randomized to second-line axitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Identified prognostic factors were: nonbulky disease (sum of the longest diameter < 98 mm), favorable/intermediate risk disease (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria), and no bone or liver metastases. In patients with all of these prognostic factors (n = 86), significantly longer PFS was observed for axitinib versus sorafenib (hazard ratio = 0.476; 95% confidence interval, 0.263-0.863; 2-sided P = .0126). OS (hazard ratio = 0.902; 95% confidence interval, 0.457-1.780; 2-sided P = .7661) was similar between treatments. Across subgroups, PFS was generally longer in patients treated with axitinib versus sorafenib, and OS was generally similar between the two treatments.ConclusionIn patients with mRCC, axitinib remains a suitable second-line treatment option across multiple subgroups. A relevant reduction in the risk of a PFS event was observed for axitinib compared to sorafenib in selected subgroups of patients.     

Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Clinical Outcome According to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Risk Group

Background

Sunitinib malate, a targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is standard of care for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and serves as the active comparator in several ongoing mRCC clinical trials. In this analysis we report benchmarks for clinical outcomes on the basis of International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups for patients treated with sunitinib for mRCC in a first-line setting.

Real world prospective experience of axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a large comprehensive cancer centre

BackgroundAxitinib has shown activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a large phase III clinical trial and was approved in patients who failed first-line therapy. This drug has been available in France since November 2012. The objective is to report efficacy and safety of axitinib in mRCC outside of clinical trials.MethodsA prospective evaluation of mRCC patients treated by axitinib in second or further next-line therapy at Gustave Roussy was conducted from 2012 to 2015. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS) and toxicities were analysed. The correlation between clinical markers and ORR, PFS, TTF and OS were explored.ResultsOne-hundred and sixty patients with mRCC, received axitinib in second (40%) or further next-line therapy (60%). International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification was good, intermediate and poor in 13%, 54% and 32%, respectively. Dose titration (DT) to 7 mg twice a day (bid) was performed in 38% and to 10 mg bid in 19% of the patients. Hypertension was the most common adverse event, (grade (G)3: 39%; G4: 2%). ORR occurred in 32% (n = 33, only partial response). Median PFS, TTF and OS were 8.3, 5.8 and 16.4 months, respectively. IMDC risk group and DT at 2 weeks are associated to ORR while grade 3 hypertension is marginally associated. IMDC risk group and grade 3 hypertension are significantly associated with better PFS, TTF and OS while DT at 2 weeks is associated to PFS and TTF.ConclusionEfficacy of axitinib in routine practice is similar to that previously reported, not only in second- but also in further next-lines of therapy.     

Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Molecular Characterization of IMDC Risk Groups and Sarcomatoid Tumors

IntroductionRecent trials have suggested predictive biomarkers in advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC): International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) good risk or angiogenic gene signature for sunitinib and IMDC intermediate/poor risk for ipilimumab-nivolumab and T-effector cell signature or sarcomatoid dedifferentiation for atezolizumab-bevacizumab. We hypothesized that earlier described molecular subtypes, ccrcc1 to ccrcc4, could provide similar information as a single generic biomarker and molecularly characterize the heterogeneous intermediate-risk group.Patients and MethodsPatients with accRCC treated with systemic therapies were included. We assessed associations between the 5 biomarkers and their impact on progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR) on first-line sunitinib or pazopanib. The cutoff percentage of sarcomatoid dedifferentiation with optimal discriminative value was determined.ResultsIn total, 430 patients were included (163 with molecular data). The molecular ccrcc2 subtype identified tumors with higher angiogenic gene expression across IMDC risk groups: prevalence was high in IMDC good risk and low in IMDC poor risk (P < .001). Molecular subtype, IMDC, and angiogenic gene expression had comparable C-indices to predict PFS and RR (range, 60%-66%). The ccrcc2 subtype and angiogenic gene expression were positive predictors of PFS in IMDC intermediate-risk patients (P = .006; P = .04). Immune signature did not differ between IMDC groups, but was strongly correlated with molecular subtype (P = .8 and P = .0007). A cutoff value of 25% sarcomatoid differentiation discriminated tumors with distinct molecular characteristics and therapeutic sensitivity.ConclusionIn accRCC, molecular subtypes can explain differences in IMDC risk group, expression of angiogenesis and immune response genes, and sarcomatoid dedifferentiation. They can identify molecularly different patient populations within the heterogeneous IMDC intermediate group and select patients for systemic therapies.     

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: outcomes of Japanese patients enrolled in the randomized,phase III,open-label KEYNOTE-426 study

Background

In the phase III open-label KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study, first-line pembrolizumab and axitinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). KEYNOTE-426 evaluated patients enrolled from 25 sites in Japan.

Methods

Patients enrolled in Japan were included in this post hoc subgroup analysis. Adults with clear cell mRCC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily or oral sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Objective response rate (ORR) and safety were secondary endpoints.

Results

The Japanese subgroup comprised 94 patients (pembrolizumab–axitinib, n = 44; sunitinib, n = 50; 11% of the intent-to-treat population). Median time from randomization to data cutoff (January 6, 2020) was 29.5 months (range 24.6–37.3). Consistent with the intent-to-treat population, the OS, PFS, and ORR suggested improvement with pembrolizumab–axitinib versus sunitinib in the Japanese subgroup. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 70% of patients receiving pembrolizumab–axitinib versus 78% receiving sunitinib; 11 (25%) patients receiving pembrolizumab–axitinib and 13 (27%) patients receiving sunitinib discontinued the study medication due to AEs. TRAEs led to the discontinuation of pembrolizumab, axitinib, pembrolizumab–axitinib, or sunitinib in 32%, 34%, 14%, and 20%, respectively. No deaths from TRAEs occurred.

Conclusions

Efficacy outcomes for the Japanese subgroup were consistent with those of the global population. Safety in Japanese patients was consistent with the results from the global population.

     

Avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma: Japanese subgroup analysis from JAVELIN Renal 101

The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial of avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib in patients with treatment‐naive advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) demonstrated significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) and higher objective response rate (ORR) with the combination vs sunitinib. Japanese patients enrolled in the study (N = 67) were randomized to receive avelumab + axitinib (N = 33) or sunitinib (N = 34); 67% vs 59% had PD‐L1+ tumors (≥1% of immune cells) and 6%/64%/27% vs 6%/82%/12% had International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable/intermediate/poor risk status. In patients who received avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib, median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was not estimable (8.1 months, not estimable) vs 11.2 months (1.6 months, not estimable) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.152, 1.563) in patients with PD‐L1+ tumors and 16.6 months (8.1 months, not estimable) vs 11.2 months (4.2 months, not estimable) (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.296, 1.464) in patients irrespective of PD‐L1 expression. Median overall survival (OS) has not been reached in either arm in patients with PD‐L1+ tumors and irrespective of PD‐L1 expression. ORR (95% CI) was 60.6% (42.1%, 77.1%) vs 17.6% (6.8%, 34.5%) in patients irrespective of PD‐L1 expression. Common treatment‐emergent adverse events (all grade; grade ≥3) in each arm were hand‐foot syndrome (64%; 9% vs 71%; 9%), hypertension (55%; 30% vs 44%; 18%), hypothyroidism (55%; 0% vs 24%; 0%), dysgeusia (21%; 0% vs 56%; 0%) and platelet count decreased (3%; 0% vs 65%; 32%). Avelumab + axitinib was efficacious and tolerable in treatment‐naive Japanese patients with advanced RCC, which is consistent with results in the overall population.     

Association Between Sites of Metastasis and Outcomes With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

BackgroundSites of metastasis have prognostic significance in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), but more information is needed regarding outcomes based on metastatic sites in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We hypothesized that presence of liver/bone metastases would be associated with worse outcomes with ICI.MethodsWe identified a retrospective cohort of patients with aUC across 26 institutions, collecting demographics, clinicopathological, treatment, and outcomes information. Outcomes were compared with logistic (observed response rate; ORR) and Cox (progression-free survival; PFS, overall survival; OS) regression between patients with/without metastasis beyond lymph nodes (LN) and those with/without bone/liver/lung metastasis. Analysis was stratified by 1st or 2nd⁺ line.ResultsWe identified 917 ICI-treated patients: in the 1st line, bone/liver metastases were associated with shorter PFS (Hazard ratio; HR: 1.65 and 2.54), OS (HR: 1.60 and 2.35, respectively) and lower ORR (OR: 0.48 and 0.31). In the 2nd⁺ line, bone/liver metastases were associated with shorter PFS (HR: 1.71 and 1.62), OS (HR: 1.76 and 1.56) and, for bone-only metastases, lower ORR (OR: 0.29). In the 1st line, LN-confined metastasis was associated with longer PFS (HR: 0.53), OS (HR:0.49) and higher ORR (OR: 2.97). In the 2nd⁺ line, LN-confined metastasis was associated with longer PFS (HR: 0.47), OS (HR: 0.54), and higher ORR (OR: 2.79); all associations were significant.ConclusionBone and/or liver metastases were associated with worse, while LN-confined metastases were associated with better outcomes in patients with aUC receiving ICI. These findings in a large population treated outside clinical trials corroborate data from trial subset analyses.     

FDA approval summary: sunitinib for the treatment of progressive well-differentiated locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

On May 20, 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sunitinib malate capsules (Sutent®; Pfizer, Inc., New York) for the treatment of progressive, well‐differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease. In a phase III randomized trial, 171 patients received either sunitinib (37.5 mg) or placebo once daily. The progression‐free survival (PFS) interval was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary endpoints included the overall survival (OS) time, objective response rate (ORR), patient‐reported outcomes, and safety. Based on early results favoring sunitinib, the independent data monitoring committee recommended trial termination prior to the prespecified interim analysis. This premature analysis may have led to an overestimate of the treatment effect. In the FDA analysis of investigator‐assessed PFS times, the median values for the sunitinib and placebo arms were 10.2 months and 5.4 months, respectively. The ORRs were 9.3% and 0% in the sunitinib and placebo arms, respectively. The OS data were not mature at the time of approval and were confounded by 69% crossover. Common adverse reactions in patients receiving sunitinib included diarrhea, nausea, asthenia, fatigue, neutropenia, hypertension, and palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome. Two patients on sunitinib died as a result of cardiac failure. The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted eight to two that, despite residual uncertainty about the magnitude of the PFS effect because of early trial termination, sunitinib demonstrated a favorable benefit–risk profile in pNET patients. The FDA concurred with the committee's assessment and granted sunitinib regular approval for this rare malignancy with few available therapies.     

Real-world Experience With Sunitinib Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Clinical Outcome According to Risk Score

BackgroundADONIS is an ongoing observational study in 9 European countries, designed to evaluate treatment patterns/outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first-line sunitinib and/or second-line axitinib post sunitinib. We present an evaluation of sunitinib efficacy by risk group, in the real-world setting examined in ADONIS.Patients and MethodsPatients were enrolled at the start of first-line sunitinib treatment or second-line axitinib post sunitinib treatment. Evaluation of sunitinib efficacy was assessed by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk criteria.ResultsFor all patients in this analysis (N = 467), the median progression-free survival was 23.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5-28.5 months), 11.8 months (95% CI, 8.1-17.4 months), and 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.5-7.7 months) for IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups, respectively. The median overall survival was 97.1 months (95% CI, 46.3 months-not evaluable [NE]), 33.5 months (95% CI, 20.5-46.6 months), and 10.0 months (95% CI, 4.5-19.8 months) for the respective risk groups. Data on individual risk factors were available for a subgroup of patients, allowing analysis by intermediate risk by 1 versus 2 risk factors. When including this subgroup (n = 120), the median overall survival for IMDC favorable-, intermediate-1, and intermediate-2 risk factors was 21.6 months (95% CI, 16.3 months-NE), 20.5 months (15.5 months-NE), and 15.1 months (4.1 months-NE), respectively.ConclusionsFor patients overall and by risk-group stratification, survival estimates were aligned with previously published data. In patients with intermediate-1 risk, overall survival was very similar to patients with favorable risk. However, further exploration of outcome data from different sources is needed to confirm these observations.     

Angiotensin system inhibitors and survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with VEGF‐targeted therapy: A pooled secondary analysis of clinical trials

Use of angiotensin system inhibitors (ASIs; angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors) has been reported to be associated with improved survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), particularly when used with vascular endothelial growth factor‐targeted therapies. This study was a secondary pooled analysis of two Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with mRCC: NCT00334282 comparing pazopanib to placebo and NCT00720941 comparing pazopanib to sunitinib. ASI users were defined as patients using an ASI at baseline. Association with overall survival (OS; primary outcome) and progression‐free survival (PFS) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. The association was adjusted in multivariable analysis for baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP), use of other antihypertensive drugs and prognostic factors comprising the Heng risk criteria for mRCC. Of 1,545 patients pooled from the two RCTs, 649 (42%) were using one or more antihypertensive drugs at baseline, 385 (59%) of which were using an ASI. In the multivariable analysis of patients using pazopanib or sunitinib, no significant association was observed between baseline ASI use and OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80–1.18], p = 0.80) or PFS (HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.73–1.06], p = 0.17). Exploratory subgroup analysis of NCT00720941 highlighted that the effect of baseline ASI use on OS may differ between patients treated with sunitinib and pazopanib. In conclusion, use of ASIs at baseline was not a significant independent prognostic factor for improved survival in a pooled analysis of mRCC patients treated with pazopanib or sunitinib.     

A phase 2 randomised discontinuation trial of cabozantinib in patients with ovarian carcinoma

BackgroundCabozantinib (XL184), an orally bioavailable inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 and MET, was assessed in a cohort of ovarian carcinoma patients as part of a phase 2 randomised discontinuation trial (RDT) with cohorts from nine different tumour types.Patients and methodsPatients received 100-mg cabozantinib daily. Those with stable disease (SD) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors at week 12 were randomised to cabozantinib or placebo. Primary end-points were objective response rate (ORR) at week 12 and progression-free survival (PFS) after random assignment.ResultsSeventy patients with ovarian carcinoma, 50% of whom were platinum refractory/resistant, were enrolled in this RDT. Median PFS from day 1 was 5.5 months for all patients. The ORR at week 12 was 21%; one patient achieved a complete response (CR), and 14 patients (20%) achieved a confirmed partial response (PR). The overall disease control rate (CR + PR + SD) at week 12 was 50%. Throughout the study, 70% of the patients with ≥1 postbaseline scan had tumour regression, and randomisation was discontinued early. For patients with SD randomised to cabozantinib, PFS was 5.9 months after randomisation. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were diarrhoea (14%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (6%), asthenia (6%), hypertension (6%) and neutropenia (6%). Dose reductions were required in 37% of the patients during the first 12 weeks.ConclusionCabozantinib demonstrates clinical activity, with acceptable toxicities, in patients with ovarian carcinoma based on ORR and regression of tumour target lesions.RegistrationThis trial is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT00940225).     

Activity of Systemic Treatments After Cabozantinib Failure in Advanced Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BackgroundCabozantinib, a potent multityrosine kinases inhibitor (TKI), has demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefit over everolimus in patients previously treated with VEGFR TKI for metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC). The efficacy of systemic treatments after cabozantinib failure has not been investigated.Materials and MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study on patients receiving systemic treatment after cabozantinib failure in heavily pretreated patient with mRCC. We assessed Time to Treatment Failure (TTF), OS and objective response rate (ORR).ResultsAmong 150 patients treated with cabozantinib in our institution, 56 (37.3%) received subsequent systemic therapy and were eligible for the analysis. IMDC prognostic group was good, intermediate and poor in 11 (19.6%), 24 (42.9%) and 11 (19.6%) patients, respectively. Cabozantinib was administered mainly as a second (41.1%), or third (33.9%) line treatment. axitinib or immune-checkpoint inhibitors were the subsequent treatment in 18 (34.8%) patients for each everolimus (n:16, 28.6%), other angiogenesis inhibitors (n:4, 7.1%) TTF and OS from subsequent systemic therapy after cabozantinib failure were 2.8 months (95%CI 1.9-3.7) and 7.7 months (95%CI 4.4-10.8), respectively. ORR was 8.7% and 2 patients with axitinib and 2 patients treated with Immune checkpoint inhibitors achieved a partial response.ConclusionOverall, activity of systemic therapies after cabozantinib was limited.     

Cabozantinib in hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a phase 2 placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation study

BackgroundCabozantinib, an orally bioavailable inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, AXL, and VEGF receptors, was assessed in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as part of a phase 2 randomized discontinuation trial with nine tumor-type cohorts.Patients and methodsEligible patients had Child-Pugh A liver function and ≤1 prior systemic anticancer regimen, completed ≥4 weeks before study entry. The cabozantinib starting dose was 100 mg daily. After an initial 12-week cabozantinib treatment period, patients with stable disease (SD) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 were randomized to cabozantinib or placebo. The primary endpoint of the lead-in stage was objective response rate (ORR) at week 12, and the primary endpoint of the randomized stage was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsAmong the 41 HCC patients enrolled, the week 12 ORR was 5%, with 2 patients achieving a confirmed partial response (PR). The week 12 disease control rate (PR or SD) was 66% (Asian subgroup: 73%). Of patients with ≥1 post-baseline scan, 78% had tumor regression, with no apparent relationship to prior sorafenib therapy. Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) response (>50% reduction from baseline) occurred in 9 of the 26 (35%) patients with elevated baseline AFP and ≥1 post-baseline measurement. Twenty-two patients with SD at week 12 were randomized. Median PFS after randomization was 2.5 months with cabozantinib and 1.4 months with placebo, although this difference was not statistically significant. Median PFS and overall survival from Day 1 in all patients were 5.2 and 11.5 months, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events, regardless of attribution, were diarrhea (20%), hand-foot syndrome (15%), and thrombocytopenia (15%). Dose reductions were utilized in 59% of patients.ConclusionsCabozantinib has clinical activity in HCC patients, including objective tumor responses, disease stabilization, and reductions in AFP. Adverse events were managed with dose reductions.Trial registration numberNCT00940225.     

Cabozantinib in Renal Cell Carcinoma With Brain Metastases: Safety and Efficacy in a Real-World Population

BackgroundCabozantinib showed efficacy and manageable toxicity in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this study we aimed to describe the safety and to collect evidence on the potential efficacy of cabozantinib in mRCC patients with brain metastases (BM) in a real-world experience.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively collected data of patients treated with cabozantinib within the Italian Managed Access Program. Patients were selected for the presence of BM before the start of treatment and for at least 1 previous tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment regimen for metastatic disease. Safety data were reported, and overall response rate (ORR), brain-specific response, progression-free survival (PFS), and median overall survival (OS) were analyzed.ResultsOverall, 12 patients treated with cabozantinib were evaluated. Any grade adverse events (AEs) accounted for 92%, Grade 3/4 AEs rated at 36% with no major neurological side effects. The most common AEs included hypertension (33%), fatigue (24%), aminotransferase elevation (25%), hypothyroidism (16%), and gastrointestinal toxicity (16%). The ORR was 50% with a disease control rate of 75%. All 5 patients treated with a combined systemic and brain-directed approach obtained intracranial disease control, without increased toxicity. Median PFS and median OS were 5.8 and 8.8 months, respectively. Comparable safety and tolerability results for other TKI regimens were reported from the literature.ConclusionCabozantinib showed safety, acceptable tolerability, and promising antitumor activity in a population of mRCC patients with BM from a real-world experience. A combined modality approach for renal cell carcinoma with BM, whenever feasible, could be recommended to improve oncological outcomes.     

External Validation of a Novel Risk Model in Patients With Favorable Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma Defined by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC): Results From the Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) Database

BackgroundA novel prognostic model was recommended for patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC). In this study, we aimed to externally validate a novel risk model for the IMDC-favorable risk group in patients with mRCC.MethodsThe Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) is a multicenter registry that includes 13 cancer centers in Turkey. As described by Schmidt et al., 3 parameters (ie, time from diagnosis to systemic therapy <3 vs. ≥3 years, Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] 80 vs. >80, and the presence of brain, liver, or bone metastasis) were used to divide the IMDC favorable risk group into 2 new categories: very favorable and favorable risk groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Time to treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR) in the very favorable and favorable risk groups were the secondary endpoints.ResultsA total of 545 patients with mRCC from all IMDC risk groups and 112 patients from the favorable risk group were included in this study. According to the novel classification model, 44 (39.3%) and 68 (60.7%) patients with former favorable risk were categorized into very favorable and favorable risk groups, respectively. The median OS (55.8 months vs. 34.2 months, P = .025) and TTF (25.5 months vs. 15.5 months, P = .010) were longer in the very favorable risk group than in the favorable risk group. The concordance index of the new IMDC model in all patients was 0.65 for OS. Despite the higher ORR in the very favorable risk group than in the favorable risk group, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (52.4% vs. 44.7, P = .573).ConclusionsThis was the first study to externally validate the novel IMDC risk model presented in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium 2021.     

A single-arm phase II Austrian/German multicenter trial on continuous daily sunitinib in primary glioblastoma at first recurrence (SURGE 01-07)

Background

Due to the redundancy of molecular pathways simultaneously involved in glioblastoma growth and angiogenesis, therapeutic approaches intervening at multiple levels seem particularly appealing.

Methods

This prospective, multicenter, single-arm phase II trial was designed to evaluate the antitumor activity of sunitinib, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of several receptor tyrosine kinases, in patients with first recurrence of primary glioblastoma using a continuous once-daily dosing regimen. Patients received a starting dose of sunitinib 37.5 mg, followed by a maintenance dose between 12.5 mg and 50 mg depending on drug tolerability. The primary endpoint was a 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. Secondary endpoints included median PFS, overall survival (OS), safety/toxicity, quality of life, and translational studies on the expression of sunitinib target molecules.

Results

Forty participants were included in this study, and no objective responses were detected. PFS6 was 12.5%, median PFS 2.2 months, and median OS 9.2 months. Five participants (12.5%) showed prolonged stable disease ≥6 months with a median PFS of 16.0 months (range, 6.4–41.4 mo) and a median OS of 46.9 months (range, 21.2–49.2 mo) for this subgroup. c-KIT expression in vascular endothelial cells (n = 14 participants) was associated with improved PFS. The most common toxicities were fatigue/asthenia, mucositis/dermatitis, dysesthesias, gastrointestinal symptoms, cognitive impairment, leukoctopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Two participants (5%) terminated treatment due to toxicity.

Conclusion

Continuous daily sunitinib showed minimal antiglioblastoma activity and substantial toxicity when given at higher doses. High endothelial c-KIT expression may define a subgroup of patients who will benefit from sunitinib treatment by achieving prolonged PFS.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00535379","term_id":"NCT00535379"}}NCT00535379.     

Clinical Effectiveness of Second-line Sunitinib Following Immuno-oncology Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-world Study

BackgroundLimited data exist on the clinical effectiveness of second-line (2L) vascular endothelial growth factor (receptor) targeted inhibitor (VEGF(R)i) sunitinib after first-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in real-world settings.MethodsA retrospective cohort study among adult patients with mRCC treated with 2L sunitinib following 1L IO was conducted from select International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) centers. All analyses were performed overall and by 1L ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) or 1L IO+VEGF(R)i. Median overall survival (mOS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) in 2L were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The 2L objective response rate (ORR) (complete/partial response) was reported.ResultsAmong 102 patients on 2L sunitinib, mean age was 61.3 years. IMDC risk scores at 2L initiation was available for 83 patients: 8 (9.6%) were favorable, 45 (54.2%) were intermediate, and 30 (36.1%) were poor risk. The 1L consisted of IPI+NIVO in 62 (60.8%), IO+VEGF(R)i therapy in 27 (26.5%), and IO monotherapy in 13 (12.7%) patients. Among all patients, mOS was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8-21.7), with a 1-year OS rate of 57.5% (95% CI, 45.2-68.0). mTTD was 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.2-7.2) and ORR was 22.5%.ConclusionDespite availability of effective 1L therapies in recent years, 2L sunitinib continues to have clinical activity after failure of 1L IO. Further studies on optimal treatment sequencing after 1L IO progression are needed.     

Real-world Data of Nivolumab for Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Netherlands: An Analysis of Toxicity,Efficacy, and Predictive Markers

BackgroundNivolumab, a programmed death 1 inhibitor, has been approved as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Europe since 2016. We investigated the toxicity and efficacy of nivolumab as well as potential predictive biomarkers in the Dutch population.Patients and MethodsThis was a retrospective, multicenter study of the Dutch national registry of nivolumab for the treatment of advanced RCC. The main outcome parameters included toxicity, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and time to treatment failure (TTF). In addition, potential predictive and prognostic biomarkers for outcomes were evaluated.ResultsData on 264 patients were available, of whom 42% were International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) poor risk at start of nivolumab, 16% had ≥ 3 lines of previous therapy, 7% had non–clear-cell RCC, 11% had brain metastases, and 20% were previously treated with everolimus. Grade 3/4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 15% of patients. The median OS was 18.7 months (95% confidence interval, 13.7-23.7 months). Progression occurred in 170 (64.4%) of 264 patients, with a 6-and 12-months TTP of 49.8% and 31.1%, respectively. The ORR was 18.6% (49 of 264; 95% confidence interval, 14%-23%). Elevated baseline lymphocytes were associated with improved PFS (P = .038) and elevated baseline lactate dehydrogenase with poor OS, PFS, and TTF (P = .000). On-treatment increase in eosinophils by week 8 predicted improved OS (P = .003), PFS (P = .000), and TTF (P = .014), whereas a decrease of neutrophils was associated with significantly better TTF (P = .023).ConclusionsThe toxicity and efficacy of nivolumab for metastatic RCC after previous lines of therapy are comparable with the results in the pivotal phase III trial and other real-world data. On-treatment increase in eosinophil count is a potential biomarker for efficacy and warrants further investigation.     

Special issue “The advance of solid tumor research in China”: Real-world clinical outcomes of alectinib for advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer patients with ALK fusion in China

Global phase 3 trials have demonstrated the priority of several next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs). However, clinical studies are conducted with specific populations that differ from the real world. The study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of alectinib in real-world settings. Patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and EML4-ALK fusion were enrolled from two medical centers between June 2018 and June 2020. The primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) to alectinib. The secondary endpoint was response of brain metastases. The risk factors for disease progression were also investigated. In total, 127 patients with advanced NSCLC were enrolled into this study. Of them, 54.3% received first-line alectinib. The 1- and 2-year PFS rates were 77.4% and 68.3%, respectively. ORR and disease control rate (DCR) were 53.5% and 91.3%, respectively. Among patients with brain metastases, intracranial ORR and DCR were 63.6% and 88.6%, respectively. In addition, we found that “crizotinib pretreatment”, “liver metastasis” and “TP53 co-mutation” were individually associated with shorter PFS in alectinib treatment. In conclusion, this study confirms the salient clinical outcomes of alectinib for ALK-fusion-driven NSCLC patients with or without brain metastases, adding real-world evidence to the priority of alectinib in clinical practice.     

CNS response to osimertinib in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC: pooled data from two phase II trials

BackgroundCentral nervous system (CNS) metastases are common in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Osimertinib has shown systemic efficacy in patients with CNS metastases, and early clinical evidence shows efficacy in the CNS. To evaluate osimertinib activity further, we present a pre-specified subgroup analysis of CNS response using pooled data from two phase II studies: AURA extension (NCT01802632) and AURA2 (NCT02094261).Patients and methodsPatients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, who had progressed following prior epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment, received osimertinib 80 mg od (n = 411). Patients with stable, asymptomatic CNS metastases were eligible for enrolment; prior CNS treatment was allowed. Patients with ≥1 measurable CNS lesion (per RECIST 1.1) on baseline brain scan by blinded independent central neuroradiology review (BICR) were included in the evaluable for CNS response set (cEFR). The primary outcome for this CNS analysis was CNS objective response rate (ORR) by BICR; secondary outcomes included CNS duration of response, disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsOf 128 patients with CNS metastases on baseline brain scans, 50 were included in the cEFR. Confirmed CNS ORR and DCR were 54% [27/50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 39–68] and 92% (46/50; 95% CI 81–98), respectively. CNS response was observed regardless of prior radiotherapy to the brain. Median CNS duration of response (22% maturity) was not reached (range, 1–15 months); at 9 months, 75% (95% CI 53–88) of patients were estimated to remain in response. Median follow-up for CNS PFS was 11 months; median CNS PFS was not reached (95% CI, 7, not calculable). The safety profile observed in the cEFR was consistent with the overall patient population.ConclusionsOsimertinib demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy against CNS metastases, with a high DCR, encouraging ORR, and safety profile consistent with that reported previously.ClinicalTrials.gov numberNCT01802632; NCT02094261