Nivolumab in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: CheckMate 275 2-year global and Japanese patient population analyses

Final Results from SAUL, a Single-arm International Study of Atezolizumab in Unselected Patients with Pretreated Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urinary Tract Carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We assessed the safety of atezolizumab in unselected patients (including understudied populations typically excluded from clinical trials) with pretreated urinary tract carcinoma (UTC). The prespecified final analysis updates previously reported safety and efficacy data.

METHODS

The single-arm prospective SAUL study (NCT02928406) enrolled 1004 patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial/non-urothelial UTC that had progressed during/after one to three prior treatment lines for advanced UTC (or <12 mo after [neo]adjuvant therapy). Broad eligibility criteria allowed enrollment of patients with complex comorbidities approximating the real-world setting. Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included duration of response and overall survival (OS).

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

The treated cohort included 10% of patients with poor performance status, 5% with creatinine clearance <30 ml/min, and 4% with autoimmune disease. At median follow-up of 55 mo, median atezolizumab duration was 2.8 mo (range 0-62); 68 patients (7%) continued atezolizumab for >4 yr. Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 16% of patients (death in 1%); 8% discontinued atezolizumab for adverse events. Median OS was 8.6 mo (95% confidence interval 7.8-9.7) and 136 patients (14%) had OS longer than 4 yr. Limitations include the small sample size for some subgroups of special interest.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Long-term safety and efficacy data continue to show a benefit of atezolizumab in unselected patients with UTC. Remarkably, 14% of patients lived for >4 yr after starting atezolizumab. These results can inform multidisciplinary team discussions and treatment decision-making for patients with UTC with complex comorbidities.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The SAUL study looked at how well tolerated a drug called atezolizumab was in patients with urinary tract cancer who had already received up to three previous treatments for their cancer, including people who are usually not included in clinical trials because of other medical conditions. The length of survival after starting treatment was also assessed. Overall, the results show that atezolizumab was well tolerated. People for whom other therapies had failed lived for about 8.6 months on average after starting treatment, and 14% of the patients were still alive after 4 years.

Adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo following radical surgery for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: a subgroup analysis of Japanese patients enrolled in the phase 3 CheckMate 274 trial

BACKGROUND

The phase 3 CheckMate 274 trial demonstrated superiority of adjuvant nivolumab over placebo after radical surgery in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. However, the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab in Japanese patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma have not been clarified.

METHODS

Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were randomized to adjuvant nivolumab 240 mg or placebo (every 2 weeks via intravenous infusion) up to 120 days after radical surgery in CheckMate 274.

RESULTS

Of 49 patients in the Japanese subgroup, 27 and 22 patients were randomized to nivolumab and placebo, respectively. Eleven and 8 patients, respectively, had tumor PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. The median disease-free survival times in the nivolumab and placebo groups were 29.67 months (95% confidence interval 7.79-not reached) and 9.72 months (95% confidence interval 4.73-not reached), respectively (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.35-1.69). The corresponding values in patients with tumor PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more were 29.67 months (95% confidence interval 2.63-not reached) and 25.95 months (95% confidence interval 5.59-not reached) (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.31-3.92), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of Grade 3-4 occurred in 25.9 and 13.6% of patients in the nivolumab and placebo groups, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab group were lipase increased, amylase increased and diarrhea. The changes in quality of life scores from baseline over time were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety results in the Japanese subgroup were consistent with the overall population of CheckMate 274.

Immunotherapy in Genitourinary Malignancy: Evolution in Revolution or Revolution in Evolution

Immunotherapy, the 5th pillar of cancer care after surgery, radiotherapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and precision therapy (molecular targeted therapy), is revolutionizing the standard of care in certain patients with genitourinary malignancies. As modest clinical benefits of IL-2 for metastatic renal cell carcinoma and Bacillus Calmette-Guerin therapy for early-stage bladder cancers in the past years, immune checkpoint inhibitors therapies demonstrate meaningful survival benefit and durable clinical response in renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and some prostate cancer. Despite best efforts, the benefits are limited to a minority of unselected patients due to the complexities of biomarker development. Now come the next hurdles: figuring out which patients best respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors and which patients won't respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors? How best to approach immune checkpoint inhibitors therapies to extend/maximize the treatment response as long as possible? How to overcome therapeutic resistance by specific concurrent immunomodulators or targeted therapy or chemotherapy? The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination or sequencing with chemotherapy or other targeted therapies or other immunomodulating therapeutics in the early disease, neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic setting is actively under exploration. Ideal strategy for cancer care is to provide not just more time, but more quality time: there remain unmet needs for novel therapies that exploit molecular or genetic pathways to extend survival without compromising health-related quality of life for patients with advanced genitourinary malignancies. Further research is needed to discover new therapeutic strategies, and validate efficacy and effectiveness in real-world settings.

Comparison of PD-1 Inhibitors in Patients With Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in the Second-Line Setting

Background

KEYNOTE-181, ATTRACTION-3, and ESCORT trials have opened the era of programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors in the second-line therapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). There is no head-to-head comparison of pembrolizumab vs. nivolumab vs. camrelizumab in the second-line setting for ESCC. We performed an indirect comparison to explore the optimal choice of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) for advanced ESCC.

Methods

Patients in ATTRACTION-3 and ESCORT were all squamous carcinoma, while KEYNOTE-181 enrolled both adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma patients. We only extract information of patients with squamous carcinoma from KEYNOTE 181 study and all the patients from ATTRACTION-3 and ESCORT. The main clinical outcomes for this study were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).

Results

Indirect analysis showed similar survival benefit among three PD-1 inhibitors. Nivolumab was comparable with pembrolizumab in most subgroups except that nivolumab was slightly better for patients with performance status (PS) score of 1 [HRnivo/pembro: 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45–1.02], p = 0.07). Compared with nivolumab indirectly, pembrolizumab and camrelizumab had better PFS [HRpembro/nivo: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.63–1.14), p = 0.29; HRcam/nivo: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.47–0.87), p = 0.004] and significantly higher ORR [RRpembro/nivo: 2.51 (95% CI: 1.22–5.15), p = 0.01; RRcam/nivo: 3.52 (95% CI: 1.73–7.18), p = 0.001]. Compared with camrelizumab indirectly, pembrolizumab had slightly worse PFS [HRpembro/cam: 1.33 (95% CI: 0.99–1.79), p = 0.057] and comparable ORR [RRpembro/cam: 0.71 (95% CI: 0.32–1.60; p = 0.41)]. Camrelizumab had a significantly higher rate of all grade TRAEs than both pembrolizumab and nivolumab.

Conclusions

Combining the safety and potential survival benefit, we recommend nivolumab for ESCC patients with PS score of 1 and pembrolizumab or camrelizumab for patients with better PS and seeking for higher efficacy or longer PFS.

Elucidation of Novel Molecular Targets for Therapeutic Strategies in Urothelial Carcinoma: A Literature Review

Urothelial carcinoma therapy is a rapidly evolving and expanding field. Traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens have not produced optimal long-term outcomes, and many urothelial cancer patients have comorbidities that disqualify them as chemotherapy candidates. In recent years, a plethora of novel therapeutic agents that target diverse molecular pathways has emerged as alternative treatment modalities for not only metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but also for muscle-invasive bladder cancer and non-muscle invasive bladder cancer in adjuvant and definitive settings. This review paper aims to discuss the various categories of therapeutic agents for these different types of urothelial cancer, discussing immunotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, kinase inhibitors, CAR-T cell therapy, peptide vaccination, and other drugs targeting pathways such as angiogenesis, DNA synthesis, mTOR/PI3K/AKT, and EGFR/HER-2.

How Assessment-Schedule Matching Limits Bias When Comparing Progression-Free Survival in Single-Arm Studies: An Application in Second-Line Urothelial Carcinoma Treatments

OBJECTIVES

Population-adjusted comparisons of progression-free survival (PFS) from single-arm trials of cancer treatments can be derived using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs); however, results are still susceptible to bias, particularly if the trials had different tumor assessment schedules. This study aims to assess the effects of assessment-schedule matching (ASM) on the relative effectiveness on the PFS of avelumab versus approved comparator immunotherapies or chemotherapy after population matching in the second-line (2L) setting for metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

METHODS

The MAIC used patient-level data for avelumab from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial (NCT01772004). PFS was compared with published curves for other treatments to obtain population-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). The MAIC was repeated after conducting ASM for differences in tumor assessment scheduled first at 6 weeks for avelumab and durvalumab and at 8 or 9 weeks for other treatments.

RESULTS

MAIC adjustment alone altered the HR estimates up to 23%, whereas MAIC plus ASM resulted in up to 32.7% reductions from naive comparisons. Even in cases in which MAIC had little effect, ASM brought an additional change of 11.1% to 15.4%. Overall, the HR range of avelumab versus other treatments changed from 0.83 to 1.25 for naive comparisons to 0.76 to 0.99 after ASM plus MAIC, numerically favoring avelumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Small variations in assessment schedules can introduce bias in unanchored indirect treatment comparisons of interval-censored time-to-event outcomes. In this study, adjusted PFS was comparable across second-line urothelial carcinoma treatment options, numerically favoring avelumab versus immunotherapies and chemotherapy agents. Correcting this bias is especially important when HRs are applied in cost-effectiveness models to transition patients between states.

Regional Delivery of Anti-PD-1 Agent for Colorectal Liver Metastases Improves Therapeutic Index and Anti-Tumor Activity

Metastatic liver tumors have presented challenges with the use of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), with only limited success. We hypothesize that regional delivery (RD) of CPIs can improve activity in the liver and minimize systemic exposure, thereby reducing immune-related adverse events (irAE). Using a murine model of colorectal cancer liver metastases (LM), we confirmed high levels of PD-L1 expression on the tumor cells and liver myeloid-derived suppressor cells (L-MDSC). In vivo, we detected improved LM response at 3 mg/kg on PTD7 via portal vein (PV) regional delivery as compared to 3 mg/kg via tail vein (TV) systemic delivery (p = 0.04). The minimal effective dose at PTD7 was 5 mg/kg (p = 0.01) via TV and 0.3 mg/kg (p = 0.02) via PV. We detected 6.7-fold lower circulating CPI antibody levels in the serum using the 0.3 mg/kg PV treatment compared to the 5 mg/kg TV cohort (p < 0.001) without increased liver toxicity. Additionally, 3 mg/kg PV treatment resulted in increased tumor cell apoptotic signaling compared to 5 mg/kg TV (p < 0.05). Therefore, RD of an anti-PD-1 CPI therapy for CRCLM may improve the therapeutic index by reducing the total dose required and limiting the systemic exposure. These advantages could expand CPI indications for liver tumors.

Cancer Immunotherapies: From Efficacy to Resistance Mechanisms - Not Only Checkpoint Matters

The immunotherapeutic treatment of various cancers with an increasing number of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has profoundly improved the clinical management of advanced diseases. However, just a fraction of patients clinically responds to and benefits from the mentioned therapies; a large proportion of patients do not respond or quickly become resistant, and hyper- and pseudoprogression occur in certain patient populations. Furthermore, no effective predictive factors have been clearly screened or defined. In this review, we discuss factors underlying the elucidation of potential immunotherapeutic resistance mechanisms and the identification of predictive factors for immunotherapeutic responses. Considering the heterogeneity of tumours and the complex immune microenvironment (composition of various immune cell subtypes, disease processes, and lines of treatment), checkpoint expression levels may not be the only factors underlying immunotherapy difficulty and resistance. Researchers should consider the tumour microenvironment (TME) landscape in greater depth from the aspect of not only immune cells but also the tumour histology, molecular subtype, clonal heterogeneity and evolution as well as micro-changes in the fine structural features of the tumour area, such as myeloid cell polarization, fibroblast clusters and tertiary lymphoid structure formation. A comprehensive analysis of the immune and molecular profiles of tumour lesions is needed to determine the potential predictive value of the immune landscape on immunotherapeutic responses, and precision medicine has become more important.

Clear cell urethral adenocarcinoma – a case report of an exceptional response to immunotherapy in a metastatic rare tumour

Primary clear cell adenocarcinoma of the urethra is extremely rare. Given the rarity of these tumours there is no high-level evidence available to guide treatments. Localized disease is typically treated with primary surgery or concurrent chemo-radiotherapy. In the advanced disease setting treatment options are limited and decisions are based on evidence in disease subtypes where similarities exist. Immuno-oncology and the use of checkpoint inhibitors, particularly for metastatic disease has transformed clinical practice over the past few years and patient outcomes continue to improve as a result of their introduction. Here we report the first case, to our knowledge, of a patient with advanced primary clear cell adenocarcinoma of the urethra who had a dramatic and almost complete response to anti-PD-1 therapy in the fourth line setting.

Level of evidence: 4

Safety and Activity of Programmed Cell Death 1 Versus Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 Inhibitors for Platinum-Resistant Urothelial Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Published Clinical Trials

Background

Programmed death 1/ligand 1 (PD-1/L1) inhibitors have acceptable antitumor activity in patients with platinum-resistant urothelial cancer (UC). However, the reliability and comparability of the antitumor activity, safety profiles and survival outcomes of different immune checkpoint inhibitors are unknown. Our objective was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapies in platinum-resistant UC patients.

Methods

We reviewed the published trials from the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases up to August 2020. A well-designed mirror principle strategy to screen and pair trial characteristics was used to justify indirect comparisons. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR). The safety profile and survival outcomes were also evaluated. The restricted mean survival time (RMST) up to 12 months was calculated.

Results

Eight studies including 1,666 advanced or metastatic UC patients (1,021 patients with anti–PD-L1 treatment and 645 patients with anti–PD-1 treatment) met the study criteria. The ORRs of anti–PD-1 and PD-L1 therapy were 22% (95% CI, 18%–25%) and 15% (95% CI, 13%–17%) with all studies combined. The proportions of the treated population with a confirmed objective response (I² = 0; P = 0.966; HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.23–2.07; P < 0.001) and disease control (I² = 30.6%; P = 0.229; HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10–1.66; P = 0.004) were higher with anti–PD-1 therapy than with anti–PD-L1 therapy. The treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (I² = 78.3%; P = 0.003; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.65–1.84; P = 0.741) and grade 3–5 treatment-related AEs (I² = 68.5%; P = 0.023; OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.95–3.01; P = 0.074) of anti–PD-1 therapy were comparable to those of anti–PD-L1 therapy. The RMST values at the 12-month follow-up were 9.4 months (95% CI,: 8.8–10.0) for anti–PD-1 therapy and 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.8–9.7) for anti–PD-L1 therapy (z = 0.26, P = 0.794). There was no significant difference between patients in the anti–PD-1 and anti–PD-L1 groups (12-month overall survival (OS): 43% versus 42%, P = 0.765. I² = 0; P = 0.999; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83–1.09; P = 0.474).

Conclusions

The results of our systematic comparison suggest that anti–PD-1 therapy exhibits better antitumor activity than anti–PD-L1 therapy, with comparable safety profiles and survival outcomes. These findings may contribute to enhanced treatment awareness in patients with platinum-resistant UC.

Risk stratification for the prognosis of patients with chemoresistant urothelial cancer treated with pembrolizumab

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat urothelial carcinoma (UC) is increasing rapidly without clear guidance for validated risk stratification. This multicenter retrospective study collected clinicopathological information on 463 patients, and 11 predefined variables were analyzed to develop a multivariate model predicting overall survival (OS). The model was validated using an independent dataset of 292 patients. Patient characteristics and outcomes were well balanced between the discovery and validation cohorts, which had median OS times of 10.2 and 12.5 mo, respectively. The final validated multivariate model was defined by risk scores based on the hazard ratios (HRs) of independent prognostic factors including performance status, site of metastasis, hemoglobin levels, and the neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio. The median OS times (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for the low‐, intermediate‐, and high‐risk groups (discovery cohort) were not yet reached (NYR) (NYR–19.1), 6.8 mo (5.8‐8.9), and 2.3 mo (1.2‐2.6), respectively. The HRs (95% CI) for OS in the low‐ and intermediate‐risk groups vs the high‐risk group were 0.07 (0.04‐0.11) and 0.23 (0.15‐0.37), respectively. The objective response rates for in the low‐, intermediate‐, and high‐risk groups were 48.3%, 28.8%, and 10.5%, respectively. These differential outcomes were well reproduced in the validation cohort and in patients who received pembrolizumab after perioperative or first‐line chemotherapy (N = 584). In conclusion, the present study developed and validated a simple prognostic model predicting the oncological outcomes of pembrolizumab‐treated patients with chemoresistant UC. The model provides useful information for external validation, patient counseling, and clinical trial design.

Comparison of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study compared real-world outcomes of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

METHODS

Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), we retrospectively evaluated intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC patients who were treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Nivo-Ipi), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) as the first-line therapy between August 2015 and January 2020. We compared oncological outcomes between the Nivo-Ipi group and TKIs group using multivariate logistic regression analysis with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method.

RESULTS

In this study 278 patients were included. There were 52 and 226 patients in the Nivo-Ipi and TKIs groups (sunitinib 97, axitinib 118, sorafenib 9, pazopanib 2), respectively. The median age in the Nivo-Ipi and TKIs groups were 69 and 67 years, respectively. There was no significant difference in age, performance status, history of nephrectomy, and the IMDC risk group distribution between the groups. The objective response rate was significantly higher in the Nivo-Ipi group (38%) than in the TKIs group (23%, P = 0.018). The IPTW-adjusted Cox regression analysis showed that a significantly longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.60, P = 0.039) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.51, P = 0.037) rates in the Nivo-Ipi group than those in the TKIs group.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcomes of patients receiving the first-line therapy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in real-world practice were significantly improved in comparison with first-line TKIs therapy.

From clinical trials to clinical use of checkpoint inhibitors for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), programmed cell death protein-1 or programmed cell death ligand-1, are changing the landscape of urothelial carcinoma therapeutics. Overall, clinical studies in metastatic or advanced urothelial cancer showed that CPIs provided a slight improvement in survival and a relevant advantage in safety, compared with chemotherapy. After reviewing published and ongoing trials, the authors discuss expected answers to unmet needs, with a special attention to the research of biological markers for patients with urothelial cancer eligible for treatment with CPIs in this article.

Immunotherapy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Current and Emerging Treatment Options

The advent of immunotherapy has revolutionized cancer treatment. Prostate cancer has an immunosuppressive microenvironment and a low tumor mutation burden, resulting in low neoantigen expression. The consensus was that immunotherapy would be less effective in prostate cancer. However, recent studies have reported that prostate cancer does have a high number of DNA damage and repair gene defects. Immunotherapies that have been tested in prostate cancer so far have been mainly vaccines and checkpoint inhibitors. A combination of genomically targeted therapies, with approaches to alleviate immune response and thereby make the tumor microenvironment immunologically hot, is promising.

Combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in Cancers: From Clinical Practice to Ongoing Clinical Trials

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) are inhibitory checkpoints that are commonly seen on activated T cells and have been offered as promising targets for the treatment of cancers. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)targeting PD-1, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab, and those targeting its ligand PD-L1, including avelumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab, and two drugs targeting CTLA-4, including ipilimumab and tremelimumab have been approved for the treatment of several cancers and many others are under investigating in advanced trial phases. ICIs increased antitumor T cells’ responses and showed a key role in reducing the acquired immune system tolerance which is overexpressed by cancer and tumor microenvironment. However, 50% of patients could not benefit from ICIs monotherapy. To overcome this, a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is frequently investigated as an approach to improve oncological outcomes. Despite promising results for the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, safety concerns slowed down the development of such strategies. Herein, we review data concerning the clinical activity and the adverse events of ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy, assessing ongoing clinical trials to identify clinical outlines that may support combination therapy as an effective treatment. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is one of the first studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy in several cancers.

Optimizing management of advanced urothelial carcinoma: A review of emerging therapies and biomarker-driven patient selection

INTRODUCTION

Advanced urothelial carcinoma has been challenging to treat due to limited treatment options, poor response rates, and poor long-term survival. New treatment options hold the promise of improved outcomes for these patients.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary working group drafted a management algorithm for advanced urothelial carcinoma using "consensus development conference" methodology. A targeted literature search identified new and emerging treatments for inclusion in the management algorithm. Published clinical data were considered during the algorithm development process, as well as the risks and benefits of the treatment options. Biomarkers to guide patient selection in clinical trials for new treatments were incorporated into the algorithm.

RESULTS

The advanced urothelial carcinoma management algorithm includes newly approved first-line anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD1)/ programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapies, a newly approved anti-fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR) therapy, and an emerging anti-Nectin 4 therapy, which have had encouraging results in phase 2 trials for second-line and third-line therapy, respectively. This algorithm also incorporates suggestions for biomarker testing of PD-L1 expression and FGFR gene alterations.

CONCLUSIONS

Newly approved and emerging therapies are starting to cover an unmet need for more treatment options, better response rates, and improved overall survival in advanced urothelial carcinoma. The management algorithm provides guidance on how to incorporate these new options, and their associated biomarkers, into clinical practice.