Validation of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) as a prognostic biomarker in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) is associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) outcomes across different solid tumors, particularly in non-small cell lung cancer. Data regarding the prognostic and/or predictive role of LIPI in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are still scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether LIPI could be predictive of survival in mRCC patients.

METHODS

We used patient level data from three different prospective studies (NIVOREN trial: nivolumab; TORAVA trial: VEGF/VEGFR-targeted therapy (TT); CheckMate 214: nivolumab-ipilimumab vs sunitinib). LIPI was calculated based on a derived neutrophils/(leukocyte-neutrophil) ratio > 3 and lactate-dehydrogenase >upper limit of normal, classifying patients into three groups (LIPI good, 0 factors;LIPI intermediate (int), 1 factor;LIPI poor, 2 factors) and/or into two groups (LIPI good, 0 factors;LIPI int/poor, 1-2 factors) according to trial sample size. Primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

In the Nivolumab dataset (n = 619), LIPI was significantly associated with OS (LIPI-good 30.1 vs 13.8 months in the LIPI int/poor; HR= 0.47) and PFS (HR=0.74). In the VEGF/VEGFR-TT dataset (n = 159), only a correlation with PFS was observed. In the CheckMate214 dataset (n = 1084), LIPI was significantly associated with OS (nivolumab-ipilimumab OS LIPI good vs int/poor: HR=0.55, p < 0.0001; sunitinib: OS LIPI good vs int/poor: 0.38, p < 0.0001) in both treatment groups in univariate and multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment-LIPI correlated with worse survival outcomes in mRCC treated with either ICI or antiangiogenic therapy, confirming LIPI's prognostic role in mRCC irrespective of systemic treatment used.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in elderly patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Analysis of the NIVOREN GETUG-AFU 26 study

INTRODUCTION

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma but their activity and safety in elderly patients is insufficiently explored. We evaluated outcomes of elderly patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab in the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN phase 2 trial (NCT03013335) and conducted exploratory circulating biomarker analyses.

METHODS

Patients with mRCC were treated with nivolumab after at least one antiangiogenic therapy. The main endpoint of this analysis was safety in patients ≥ 70 years old (y.o), as per the rate of treatment-related grade 3-5 events (TRAE). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival. Exploration of candidate biomarkers associated with aging included baseline circulating cytokines involved in inflammation, adhesion, immune checkpoints, angiogenesis (IL6, IL7, IL8, BAFF, CXCL13, VCAM-1, 4-1BB, VEGF).

RESULTS

Of 720 patients, 515 were < 70 y.o and 205 ≥ 70 y.o. Patients ≥ 70 y.o exhibited numerically less IMDC poor risk disease (21.0% vs 26.9%), sarcomatoid component (4.9% vs 9.8%) or brain metastases (5.9% vs. 14.7%), but more previous treatment lines (≥ 2 in 54.1% vs 48.5%). TRAE were higher in patients ≥ 70 y.o (24.9% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.033). Respective ORR (19.2% vs. 22.1%) and median PFS (4.5 versus 3.0 months, HR 0.97 [95%CI 0.81-1.15]) were similar. Overall survival was shorter in patients ≥ 70 y.o (19.3 versus 26.9 months, HR 1.26 [95%CI 1.04-1.51]), but not significantly in a competitive risk model. Only V-CAM1 and 4-1BB were found to be increased in patients ≥ 70 y.o.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab displayed higher grade 3/4 TRAE but manageable toxicity in elderly patients, with sustained activity. Elderly patients did not display specific inflammatory or angiogenic circulating profiles.

Impact of First Line Antiangiogenic Therapy Duration on Nivolumab Outcome in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated in the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN

BACKGROUND

In metastatic renal clear cell carcinoma (ccRCC), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and immune checkpoint are 2 main therapeutic targets. We investigated the impact of duration exposure to antiangiogenic on immunotherapy clinical outcomes in metastatic ccRCC.

METHODS

Patients from NIVOREN trial who received nivolumab after only 1 prior antiangiogenic therapy were included. Response rate, clinical benefit, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were prospectively analyzed depending on the duration of the first line (< 6 months, ≥6 months) and exploratory in patients with long first line exposure (≥18 months). The circulating levels of 8 plasma proteins and cytokines at baseline were collected and compared according to first line antiangiogenic duration.

RESULTS

Among 354 patients, 127 (36%) and 227 (64%) patients had received first line antiangiogenic for < 6months and ≥ 6months respectively. Respective duration of first line therapy was not associated with objective response to nivolumab (20.5% vs. 23.9%, P = .50), or PFS (HR 0.92; P = .421). Median OS was respectively 16.6 and 31.3 months in the <6 and ≥6 months subgroups respectively. Adjusted on international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk, age and metastatic site, OS was longer in patients with longer treatment duration in the first line setting (HR 0.73; P = .017). Duration of first line VEGFR TKI was independent from circulating levels of 8 proteins and cytokines at nivolumab baseline.

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab activity in second line is independent from first-line duration of VEGFR TKI. However, first line VEGFR TKI duration ≥ 6 months is associated with longer OS.

Comprehensive analyses of immune tumor microenvironment in papillary renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the most common non-clear cell RCC, and associated with poor outcomes in the metastatic setting. In this study, we aimed to comprehensively evaluate the immune tumor microenvironment (TME), largely unknown, of patients with metastatic pRCC and identify potential therapeutic targets.

METHODS

We performed quantitative gene expression analysis of TME using Microenvironment Cell Populations-counter (MCP-counter) methodology, on two independent cohorts of localized pRCC (n=271 and n=98). We then characterized the TME, using immunohistochemistry (n=38) and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) (n=30) on metastatic pRCC from the prospective AXIPAP trial cohort.

RESULTS

Unsupervised clustering identified two "TME subtypes", in each of the cohorts: the "immune-enriched" and the "immune-low". Within AXIPAP trial cohort, the "immune-enriched" cluster was significantly associated with a worse prognosis according to the median overall survival to 8 months (95% CI, 6 to 29) versus 37 months (95% CI, 20 to NA, p=0.001). The two immune signatures, Teff and JAVELIN Renal 101 Immuno signature, predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in clear cell RCC, were significantly higher in the "immune-enriched" group (adjusted p<0.05). Finally, five differentially overexpressed genes were identified, corresponding mainly to B lymphocyte populations.

CONCLUSION

For the first time, using RNA-seq and immunohistochemistry, we have highlighted a specific immune TME subtype of metastatic pRCC, significantly more infiltrated with T and B immune population. This "immune-enriched" group appears to have a worse prognosis and could have a potential predictive value for response to immunotherapy, justifying the confirmation of these results in a cohort of metastatic pRCC treated with CPI and in combination with targeted therapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02489695.

Adrenal Metastases Are Associated with Poor Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Nivolumab in the GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN Phase 2 Trial

BACKGROUND

Glandular metastases (GMs; adrenal gland, pancreas, thyroid, ovary, breast, or prostate) are rare in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Previous studies have indicated that GM patients treated with antiangiogenic therapy experience significantly longer overall survival (OS).

OBJECTIVES

To assess outcomes for mccRCC with or without GMs treated with nivolumab.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN phase 2 trial evaluated the activity and safety of nivolumab in patients with mccRCC who experienced failure of antiangiogenic therapies (NCT03013335). In this ancillary study, patients were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of at least one GM.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was OS; secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and the objective response rate (ORR). Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression models are used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for survival outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with pancreatic metastases and patients with adrenal metastases.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 720 patients treated with nivolumab between February 2016 and July 2017, 217 had GMs, of whom 151/217 had adrenal metastases and 86/217 had pancreatic metastasis. Patients with adrenal metastases had worse 12-mo OS (64% vs 71.1%) and 6-mo PFS (27.2% vs 36.6%) and a lower objective response rate (12.5%, 95% CI 7.6%-19.0%, vs 23.2%, 95% CI 19.8-27.0%; p = 0.005) than patients without adrenal metastases. Conversely, univariate analysis showed that patients with pancreatic metastases had significantly better 12-mo OS (82.3% vs 67.9%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.85) in comparison to patients with nonpancreatic GMs. On multivariable analysis, only adrenal metastasis remained associated with adverse prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Adrenal metastasis is an independent prognostic factor for poor response and survival in the GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN trial. Limited activity with nivolumab was observed for patients with mccRCC with adrenal metastases. These results warrant an evaluation of the prognostic value of adrenal metastases in patients treated with immunotherapy combinations with ipilimumab or tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our study showed that metastasis in the adrenal glands could be an independent factor associated with poor response to immunotherapy and survival for patients with metastatic kidney cancer. It would be useful to evaluate the prognostic value of adrenal gland metastasis in patients treated with immunotherapy combinations or immunotherapy agents combined with drugs called tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Uveal melanoma: In the era of new treatments

Uveal melanoma (UM), also known as choroidal melanoma, is the leading adult intraocular tumor worldwide, affecting mainly Caucasian populations. The last decade has seen an improvement in the outcome of these tumors at the localized stage, in favor of conservative treatment of the eye, notably with new radioactive treatment techniques. Despite optimal management, half of the patients will become metastatic, with liver involvement in 90% of cases. The prognosis is pejorative and considers clinical, tumor anatomy, histological and molecular parameters. This review provides a broad overview of the different therapeutic options for the management of localized or metastatic UM disease, with recently updated data. Despite the known limited efficacy of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), we discuss the first results of combined immunotherapies, the arrival of a new first-in-class immunomodulatory treatment Tebentafusp, in HLA-A*02:01 patients, avenues of research into targeted anti-tyrosine kinase therapies, and the growing use of ctDNA to guide treatment prescription.

Overall Survival and Updated Results for Sunitinib Compared With Interferon Alfa in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE

A randomized, phase III trial demonstrated superiority of sunitinib over interferon alfa (IFN-α) in progression-free survival (primary end point) as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Final survival analyses and updated results are reported.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seven hundred fifty treatment-naïve patients with metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on a 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off dosing schedule or to IFN-α 9 MU subcutaneously thrice weekly. Overall survival was compared by two-sided log-rank and Wilcoxon tests. Progression-free survival, response, and safety end points were assessed with updated follow-up.

RESULTS

Median overall survival was greater in the sunitinib group than in the IFN-α group (26.4 v 21.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.821; 95% CI, 0.673 to 1.001; P = .051) per the primary analysis of unstratified log-rank test (P = .013 per unstratified Wilcoxon test). By stratified log-rank test, the HR was 0.818 (95% CI, 0.669 to 0.999; P = .049). Within the IFN-α group, 33% of patients received sunitinib, and 32% received other vascular endothelial growth factor-signaling inhibitors after discontinuation from the trial. Median progression-free survival was 11 months for sunitinib compared with 5 months for IFN-α (P < .001). Objective response rate was 47% for sunitinib compared with 12% for IFN-α (P < .001). The most commonly reported sunitinib-related grade 3 adverse events included hypertension (12%), fatigue (11%), diarrhea (9%), and hand-foot syndrome (9%).

CONCLUSION

Sunitinib demonstrates longer overall survival compared with IFN-α plus improvement in response and progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic RCC. The overall survival highlights an improved prognosis in patients with RCC in the era of targeted therapy.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma: Results of the GETUG-AFU26-NIVOREN multicentre phase II study

INTRODUCTION

Bone metastases (BM) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are associated with a poor prognosis based on retrospective studies evaluating antiangiogenic agents. Few data are available regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with bone metastatic RCC. NIVOREN is a multicentre prospective study in which patients were treated with nivolumab after the failure of antiangiogenic agents. We aim to assess the impact of BM on prognosis, and the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients enrolled in the NIVOREN trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients with BM at inclusion were included in our study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and skeletal-related events (SRE).

RESULTS

Among 720 patients treated with nivolumab, 194 presented BM at inclusion. The median follow-up was 23.9 months. Median OS was 17.9 months in patients with BM versus 26.1 months in patients without BM (p = 0.0023). The difference was not statistically significant after adjustment (p = 0.0707). The median PFS was shorter in patients with BM even after adjustment (2.8 versus 4.6 months, p = 0.0045), as well as the ORR (14.8% versus 23.3%). SRE occurred for 36% of patients with BM. A post-hoc analysis evaluating the impact of bone-targeting agents (BTA) on SRE incidence showed a significant benefit of BTA on the incidence of SRE (OR = 0.367, CI95% [0.151-0.895]).

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab is associated with shorter PFS, and lower ORR in RCC patients with BM. Our study suggests that BTA in association with immunotherapy decreases the incidence of SRE.

A group of novel VEGF splice variants as alternative therapeutic targets in renal cell carcinoma

The efficacy of anti-angiogenic treatment by targeting VEGF/VEGF receptors in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) varies from patient to patient. Discovering the reasons behind this variability could lead to the identification of relevant therapeutic targets. Thus, we investigated novel splice variants of VEGF that are less efficiently inhibited by anti-VEGF/VEGFR targeting than the conventional isoforms. By in silico analysis we identified a novel splice acceptor in the last intron of the VEGF gene resulting in an insertion of 23 bp in VEGF mRNA. Such an insertion can shift the open reading frame in previously described splice variants of VEGF (VEGFXXX), leading to a change in the C-terminal part of the VEGF protein. Next, we analyzed the expression of these alternatively spliced VEGF new isoforms (VEGFXXX/NF.) in normal tissues and in RCC cell lines by qPCR and ELISA, and investigated the role of VEGF222/NF (equivalent to VEGF165) in physiological and pathological angiogenesis. Our in-vitro data demonstrated that recombinant VEGF222/NF stimulated endothelial cell proliferation and vascular permeability by activating VEGFR2. In addition, VEGF222/NF overexpression enhanced proliferation and metastatic properties of RCC cells, whereas downregulation of VEGF222/NF resulted in cell death. We also generated an in-vivo model of RCC by implanting RCC cells overexpressing VEGF222/NF in mice, which we treated with polyclonal anti-VEGFXXX/NF antibodies. VEGF222/NF overexpression enhanced tumor formation with aggressive properties and a fully functional vasculature , while treatment with anti-VEGFXXX/NF antibodies slowed tumor growth by inhibiting tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis. In a patient cohort from the NCT00943839 clinical trial we investigated the relationship between plasmatic VEGFXXX/NF levels, resistance to anti-VEGFR therapy and survival. High plasmatic VEGFXXX/NF levels correlated with shorter survival and lower efficacy of anti-angiogenic drugs. Our data confirmed the existence of new VEGF isoforms that could serve as novel therapeutic targets in patients with RCC that are resistant to anti-VEGFR therapy.

MBD4 deficiency is predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic uveal melanoma patients

BACKGROUND

MBD4 mutations have been reported in uveal melanomas, acute myeloid leukemias, colorectal adenocarcinomas, gliomas, and spiradenocarcinomas and cause a hypermutated phenotype. Although metastatic uveal melanomas (mUM) are usually resistant to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), the first reported MBD4-mutated (MBD4m) patient responded to ICI, suggesting that MBD4 mutation may predict response to ICI.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort of mUM patients treated with ICI. MBD4 was sequenced in a subset of these patients.

RESULTS

Three hundred mUM patients were included. Median follow-up was 17.3 months. Ten patients with an objective response and 20 cases with stable disease for >12 months were observed, corresponding to an objective response rate of 3.3% and a clinical benefit (i.e., responder patients and stable disease) rate of 10%. Of the 131 tumors sequenced for MBD4, five (3.8%) were mutated. MBD4 mutation was associated with a better objective response rate as three out of five MBD4m versus 4% of MBD4 wild-type patients responded (p < 0.001). Of these five responders, three presented progressive disease at 2.8, 13.9, and 22.3 months. Median PFS was 4.0 months in MBD4 wild-type and 22.3 months in MBD4m patients (HR = 0.22; p = 0.01). Median OS in MBD4def patients was unreached as compared to 16.6 months in MBD4pro (HR = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.02-0.86; log-rank p-test = 0.04; Fig. 2e).

CONCLUSIONS

In mUM patients, MBD4 mutation is highly predictive for the response, PFS, and overall survival benefit to ICI. MBD4 could be a tissue-agnostic biomarker and should be sequenced in mUM, and other tumor types where MBD4 mutations are reported.

MBD4 deficiency is predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic uveal melanoma patients: A retrospective study

e21601

Background: MBD4 encodes a glycosylase implicated in repair of lesions induced by DNA deamination and its inactivation in tumors is associated with a hypermutated phenotype. Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare but aggressive form of melanoma carrying an extremely low mutation burden. Although metastatic UM (mUM) are usually resistant to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), the first reported MBD4-mutated (MBD4m) patient responded to ICI, suggesting that MBD4 mutation may predict response to ICI. Since then, other MBD4-inactivated UMs, acute myeloid leukemias, colorectal adenocarcinomas, gliomas and spiradenocarcinoma cases have been reported. Methods: Retrospective cohort of mUM patients treated with ICI. MBD4 was sequenced in a subset of these patients. Results: Three hundred mUM patients were analyzed. Median follow-up was 17.3 months. Ten objective responses and 20 stable disease for > 12 months were observed, corresponding to an objective response rate of 3.3% and a clinical benefit (CB; i.e. responder patients and stable disease) rate of 10%. Median progression-free survivals (PFS) in patients without and with CB were 3.1 and 16.3 months, respectively (p < 0.0001). Of the 134 tumors sequenced for MBD4, five (3.7%) were mutated. MBD4 inactivation was associated with higher mutation burden (179 to 643 variants versus a median of 16 in MBD4 wild-type), better objective response rate as 60% of MBD4m versus 4% of MBD4-wild type patients responded (Fisher’s exact p-test = 0.0009). Median PFS was 4.0 months in MBD4-wild type and 22.3 months in MBD4m patients (HR = 0.22; p = 0.01). Median overall survival was 16.6 months in MBD4-wild type and unreached in MBD4m patients (HR = 0.11; p = 0.004). Conclusions: In mUM patients, MBD4 mutation is highly predictive for response to ICI, PFS and overall survival benefit. MBD4 could be a tissue-agnostic biomarker and should be sequenced in mUM and other tumor types where MBD4 mutations are reported.

Association of adrenal metastases with outcomes in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) treated with nivolumab in the GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN phase II trial

348

Background: Glandular metastases (GMs) (adrenal, pancreas, thyroid, ovary, breast, or prostate) are rare in mccRCC. Several studies have observed significantly longer overall survival (OS) for GM patients treated with anti-angiogenic therapy. This study assesses outcomes from mccRCC treated with nivolumab with or without GMs. Methods: The GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN, phase II trial assessed the activity and safety of nivolumab in pts with mccRCC who failed antiangiogenic therapies (NCT03013335). Pts were stratified in two subgroups according to the presence of at least one GM. Specific analyzes were performed for pancreatic and adrenal metastases. Primary endpoint was OS, secondary endpoint were progression free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). Results: Between February 2016 and July 2017, among 720 patients treated by nivolumab 217 patients had GM (151: adrenal and 86: pancreatic metastases). Clinical characteristics were comparable between the two subgroups except for IMDC poor subgroup (19% vs 28%) and for Furhman grade IV (13.5% vs 23.4%) for GM and non GM respectively. Median time between metastatic disease and nivolumab was 3.2 years (y) vs 2 y for GM and non GM respectively and 2.8 vs 2.1 y with or without adrenal metastasis. There was no statistical difference in outcomes between pts with or without GMs. However, pts with adrenal metastases had worse OS (12-months survival: 64% vs 71.1%; HR 1.51 (1.19-1.92)); shorter PFS (6-months survival: 27.2% vs 36.6%; HR 1.29 (1.07-1.57)) and lower ORR (12.5% [7.6%; 19.0%] vs 23.2% [19.8%; 27.0%]; p = 0.005) than non-adrenal metastases. Conversely, patients with pancreatic metastases had significantly longer overall survival (12-months survival: 82.3% vs 67.9%; HR 0.59 (0.40-0.85)) in univariate analysis compared to non-pancreatic metastases. In multivariate analysis, only adrenal metastasis remained associated with dismal prognosis (Table). Conclusions: Adrenal metastasis is an independent poor prognostic factor for response and survival in the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN phase II trial. Limited activity with nivolumab is observed for patients with adrenal metastases from mccRCC without difference with previous anti angiogenic therapy. Molecular characterization could help to identify the angiogenic profile of adrenal metastases. Clinical trial information: NCT03013335. [Table: see text]

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in renal cell carcinoma patients with BONE metastases: Results of the GETUG: AFU 26 nivoren multicenter phase II study

342

Background: Bone metastases (BM) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are associated with a poor prognosis based on retrospective studies in which patients were treated with antiangiogenic agents. Since the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, few data are available regarding the prognosis impact of BM or the efficacy and safety of checkpoint inhibitors in patients with bones metastatic RCC. GETUG-AFU26-NIVOREN (NIVOREN) is a French multicenter prospective study in which patients were treated with nivolumab after failure of one or more antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We therefore aim to evaluate the impact of BM on prognosis, and the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients with BM enrolled in NIVOREN trial. Methods: All adult patients with BM at inclusion were included in our study. The primary endpoint of this ancillary study was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with BM. Clinical data were collected prospectively, except for SRE data which were collected retrospectively in a complementary consent report form. Results: Among 720 patients treated with nivolumab in the NIVOREN study, 194 had BM at inclusion. After a median follow-up of 23.9 months, the median OS was 17.9 months in patients with BM versus 26.1 months in patients without BM (HR = 1.42 CI95% [1.13-1.79], p = 0.0023). After adjustment on sex, age, IMDC group and line of treatments, the difference was not significant (HR = 1.24, CI95% [0.98-1.56], p = 0.0707). The median PFS was shorter in patients with BM even after adjustment (2.8 versus 4.6 months, HR = 1.30 CI95% [1.08-1.56]), as well as the ORR (14.8% versus 23.3%). The safety profile was similar between patients with or without BM at inclusion. The incidence of SRE in the BM population was 36% during the treatment period with nivolumab. A post-hoc analysis evaluating the impact of bone-targeting agents in association with nivolumab on SRE incidence was performed. There was a statistically significant benefit in patients treated with bone-targeting agents on the incidence of SRE (OR = 0.367, CI95% [0.151-0.895], p = 0.0276). Conclusions: Nivolumab is associated with shorter OS, PFS, and lower ORR in patients with BM. Our study confirms, in the era of immunotherapy that patients with BM are associated with poorer prognosis and suggests that association with bone-targeting agents decreases the incidence of SRE. Clinical trial information: 2015-004117-24.

Immuno-oncology (IO) combinations +/- VEGF targeted therapy (VEGF TT) in patients (pts) with advanced mit family translocation renal cell carcinomas (tRCC): Results from an international multicenter study

343

Background: IO combinations are standard of care for first-line therapy of clear-cell RCC; however, non-clear cell histologies including tRCC were not included in the registrational trials. We previously reported a modest efficacy (objective response rate [ORR] <20%) with IO monotherapy (PD-1 blockade) in tRCC (Boilève et al, JITC. 2018). The efficacy of IO combinations +/- VEGF TT has not been reported. Methods: This is a retrospective, international, multicenter study of pts with tRCC treated with IO-IO or IO+VEGF TT at 11 centers in the US, France, and Belgium. Only pts with confirmed TFE3 or TFEB translocation by fluorescent-in-situ hybridization (FISH) were included. ORR and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed by RECIST. Overall survival (OS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods. OS was measured from initiation of therapy till death or last follow up. We also assessed the association between OS and baseline prognostic variables. Results: 29 patients with metastatic tRCC were included in this analysis. Median age at starting therapy was 38 (IQR 27, 53) years. Female:Male ratio was 0.9:1. FISH revealed a translocation involving TFE3 and TFEB in 22 and 7 patients, respectively. Most frequent metastatic sites at diagnosis were lungs (76%), liver (52%), retroperitoneal adenopathy (48%), and bone (38%). IMDC risk at diagnosis was favorable (31%), intermediate (45%) and poor (24%). Combinations of IO+VEGF TT and anti-PD1 (L1) + anti-CTLA-4 (IO+IO) were used in 11 and 18 pts, respectively. 17 (59%) pts received IO combinations as 1L, 7 (24%) pts as 2L and 5 (17%) pts as ≥3L. ORR in the IO+IO group was 1/18 (5.5%), while in IO+VEGF TT group was 4/11 (36%). For 20 (69%) pts, progressive disease was the best overall response. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months (mo), median PFS was 3.2 mo and median OS was 13.5 mo for all 29 pts (Table). Median PFS in the IO+IO group was 2.8 mo, and 5.4 mo in IO+VEGF TT group (HR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.35-1.84). Conclusions: In this small retrospective study of tRCC, IO+IO therapy produced modest activity based on low ORR and short PFS while IO+VEGF TT produced numerically higher ORR and longer PFS. Insights into the biological basis of tRCC are necessary to develop more effective therapies for this rare and aggressive RCC variant.[Table: see text]

Decrease of Pro-Angiogenic Monocytes Predicts Clinical Response to Anti-Angiogenic Treatment in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

The modulation of subpopulations of pro-angiogenic monocytes (VEGFR-1+CD14 and Tie2+CD14) was analyzed in an ancillary study from the prospective PazopanIb versus Sunitinib patient preferenCE Study (PISCES) (NCT01064310), where metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients were treated with two anti-angiogenic drugs, either sunitinib or pazopanib. Blood samples from 86 patients were collected prospectively at baseline (T1), and at 10 weeks (T2) and 20 weeks (T3) after starting anti-angiogenic therapy. Various subpopulations of myeloid cells (monocytes, VEGFR-1+CD14 and Tie2+CD14 cells) decreased during treatment. When patients were divided into two subgroups with a decrease (defined as a >20% reduction from baseline value) (group 1) or not (group 2) at T3 for VEGFR-1+CD14 cells, group 1 patients presented a median PFS and OS of 24 months and 37 months, respectively, compared with a median PFS of 9 months (p = 0.032) and a median OS of 16 months (p = 0.033) in group 2 patients. The reduction in Tie2+CD14 at T3 predicted a benefit in OS at 18 months after therapy (p = 0.04). In conclusion, in this prospective clinical trial, a significant decrease in subpopulations of pro-angiogenic monocytes was associated with clinical response to anti-angiogenic drugs in patients with mRCC.

A randomized phase II study of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus standard of care in previously untreated and advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (SUNIFORECAST)

TPS4597

Background: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (nccRCC) account for approximately 25% of RCC patients (pts.). Data on treatment strategies for this heterogenous group of RCC are still limited, since most clinical trials focus on clear-cell RCC (ccRCC) histology. Recently combination therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors (IO, avelumab or pembrolizumab) and tyrosinekinaseinhibitors (TKI) (axitinib) have been approved for treatment in RCC in all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. Additionally nivolumab and ipilimumab (IO/IO) has been approved for treatment in intermediate and high risk pts. showing a significant improvement in overall response rate (ORR), progression free (PFS), and overall survival (OS) compared to sunitinib. Moreover retrospective analysis in nccRCC pts. have shown promising results for IO-based therapies as well in these entities. Methods: In this prospective randomized phase-II multicenter European trial adults with advanced or metastatic nccRCC without prior systemic therapy are eligible. Other key inclusion criteria include: available tumor tissue, Karnofsky >70% and measurable disease per RECIST 1.1. All histological diagnoses are reviewed by a central pathologist. The study plans to randomize ̃306 pts. stratified for papillary or non-papillary non-clear cell histology and by the IMDC risk score. Pts. will be randomized 1:1 to either i) nivolumab 3mg/kg intravenously (IV) plus Ipilimumab 1mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 4 doses followed by nivolumab fixed dose 240mg IV every 2 weeks or fixed dose 480mg IV every 4 weeks or ii) standard of care therapy according to the approved schedule. Treatment will be discontinued in case of unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of informed consent. Pts may continue treatment beyond progression, if clinical benefit is achieved and treatment is well tolerated. Primary endpoint is the OS rate at 12 months. Secondary endpoints include OS rate at 6 and 18 months, median OS, PFS, ORR and quality of life. The trial is in progress and 214 patients (132 pts with papillary, 76 pts with non-papillary histology) have been enrolled until now. Clinical trial information: NCT03075423.

Randomized phase Ib study to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic activity of simlukafusp α in combination with atezolizumab ± bevacizumab in patients with unresectable advanced/ metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (NCT03063762)

4556

Background: Simlukafusp α ([SIM], FAP-IL2v) is a novel IL-2v immunocytokine engineered to preferentially activate effector CD8 T and NK cells, but not regulatory T cells (Tregs), due to abolished binding to Interleukin-2 receptor α (IL-2Rα) and retained affinity to IL-2Rβγ. High affinity binding of SIM to fibroblast activation protein (FAP), expressed on cancer-associated fibroblasts, mediates its accumulation in malignant lesions. Methods: The Dose-Escalation (DE) consisted of: Arm A: SIM 5-25 mg weekly for 4 weeks, and every 2 weeks (Q2W) thereafter in combination with atezolizumab [ATZ] 840mg Q2W; and Arm B: same as Arm A + bevacizumab [BEV] 10 mg/kg Q2W. Patients (pts) not previously treated were evaluated in the Extension Part: Arm C (n=3): SIM + ATZ every 3 weeks (Q3W); or Arm D (n=25): SIM + ATZ + BEV (“triplet”) Q3W. Primary objectives were: finding the recommended dose of SIM and assessment of objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1. Results: We enrolled 69 pts with unresectable advanced/ metastatic clear-cell and/or sarcomatoid RCC. Median age of patients was 57 years (range: 35-78). The recommended dose for extension of SIM was 10 mg. Median treatment duration in days in each arm were: A: 106 (range: 1-877); B: 324 (8-940); C: 659 (71-768); D: 437 (1-682). Twenty-five pts are evaluable for therapeutic activity in Arm A [ORR: 24% (6 PR; 90% CI 12.95, 40.12)]; 15 in Arm B [46.7% (1 CR, 6PR; 90% CI 27.67, 66.68)]; 3 in Arm C [33.3% (1PR; 90% CI 7.83, 74.65)]; and 23 in Arm D [47.8% (2 CR, 9 PR; 90% CI 35.74, 68.15)]. Twelve patients are ongoing on study treatment. Treatment related grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AE) occurred respectively in 69.7% and 9.1% patients. The most common serious AEs were pyrexia (10.6 %) and infusion-related reactions (9.1%). 65.2% Of the patients reported at least one AE of elevations in liver transaminases/GGT/ alkaline phosphatase/bilirubin. Drug-related AEs led to dose modification/interruption in 37.9 % of the pts, and treatment discontinuation in 3% of the patients. SIM led to preferential expansion and activation of NK and CD8 T cells (but not Tregs) in peripheral blood and augmented tumor infiltration and tumor inflammation. Intriguingly responses were observed not only in pts with PD-L1 positive or inflamed tumors, but also in pts with PD-L1 negative tumors (n=13) or poorly infiltrated tumors classified as immune deserts (n=2). Conclusions: The combination of SIM with ATZ ± BEV was feasible with an acceptable safety profile. Clinical activity was more favorable for the triplet among the study Arms, but comparable to the ATZ + BEV combination in the IMmotion151 (Rini B, et al 2019). Observed pharmacodynamic findings were consistent with the expected effects. Clinical trial information: NCT03063762.

Prognosis impact of serous metastases (SMs) in clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients in the GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN phase II trial

e16566

Background: Nivolumab monotherapy (N) is a standard of care for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) after failure of antiangiogenic therapies. IMDC criteria is the established prognostic model in anyline of systemic treatment including with N. While liver, bone and brain have been reported to convey a dismal prognosis, little is known about the pejorative prognostic impact of serous metastatic sites (pleura, peritoneum, pericardium) in patients receiving anti-PD (L) -1 treatment. Methods: We aimed to assess survival, and activity of N in patients included in the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN phase II prospective trial ( NCT03013335 ), according to serous metastases (SMs). Results: Overall, 720 patients with metastatic ccRCC, and treated with N. Baseline RECIST metastases data were available for 708 patients included in this analysis. Among them, 142 (20%) had SMs (pleura, n=91 ; peritoneum, n=50 ; pericardium, n=1). Median PFS (4.5 vs 2.6 mo ; HR :1.31 ; p=0.0079), and OS (26.1 vs 15 mo ; HR :1.67 ; p<0.0001) were significantly lower in patients with SMs. The dismal prognostic impact was observed both with pleura and peritoneum SMs. These 2 sites were not significantly associated. Using multivariate Cox models, SMs remained significantly associated with poor survival, independently of IMDC category, gender, age, and number of previous lines of therapy. Objective response rate in patients with SMs was not significantly different from others patients (16.4 vs 22.1%; p=0.147). SMs were not statistically associated with known poor prognosis metastatic sites (cerebral, bone, and liver.) Conclusions: SMs are a strong independent prognostic impact in patients receiving N for metastatic ccRCC Poor prognostic metastatic sites should be considered when assessing the prognosis of patients with metastatic ccRCC

[Manual for "Junior Doctors" in medical oncology]

The reform of medical residency introduced in 2017 established the position of Junior Doctor, for its last phase, called the consolidation phase. Its goal is the increasing and supervised autonomy of the resident, in order to better support the transition toward senior practitioner. It appears necessary to define proper guidelines on the status and the specific role of Junior Doctor in medical oncology, in order to help the implementation of the reform of the 3rd cycle. This document is the result of a collaboration between AERIO and CNEC, that respectively represent medical oncology residents and university teachers. It aims to advise and guide local practices, without being compulsory, before the arrival of the first Junior Doctors in November 2021. It explains the Junior Doctors' principal jobs: consultation, multidisciplinary meeting, day clinic, hospitalization, clinical research, quality policy and teaching.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in older patients (pts) with renal cell carcinoma: Results of a sub-group analysis of the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN multicenter phase II study

331

Background: NIVOREN GETUG AFU 26 study, is a french multicenter prospective study to evaluate safety and efficacy of Nivolumab (N) in a broad “real world setting” in mRCC after failure of 1 or 2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Methods: Between February 2016 and July 2017, 729 pts were enrolled across 27 institutions. Primary objective of the trial was safety assessed by grade ≥ 3 treatment related adverse event (TRAE). We report here results of older patients above 70 years old ([70;75[; [75;80[; ≥ 80) compared with their younger counterparts. Results: Overall, 720 patients were treated (median age 64 (22;90)). Among them 205 pts were ≥ 70 (28.5%) divided as follow: [70-75[:107 (14.9%) / [75-80[: 68 (9,4%) / ≥ 80: 30 (4,2%). Patients’ characteristics (Table) were similar in younger and older patients except for IMDC risk groups (IMDC) classification with less poor prognostic in pts ≥ 75 and fewer brain metastasis in pts ≥ 70. Treatment duration was similar across age groups despite a rate of discontinuation for TRAE increasing with age. Regarding efficacy, there was a non-significant trend toward improved response rate and progression free survival and lower specific survival with increasing age. Conclusions: In this large “real world” setting study a significant number of old pts were included. Prognostic profile appears better in older pts included. There is no signal for an excess of toxicity in this population and efficacy is comparable to younger patients. Age alone should not prevent prescribing N in mRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03013335 . [Table: see text]

Association of statins and nivolumab activity in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from the phase II nivoren—GETUG AFU 26 trial

359

Background: Statins are HMG-CoA inhibitors that regulate several mechanisms involved in tumor growth, including mitochondrial metabolism, activation of oncogenic signaling pathways, and immune modulation. Population-based studies showed that statin intake may be negatively associated with RCC onset. The impact of statins on response to immunotherapy in mRCC is unknown. Herein we study the association between statin administration and outcomes in patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab in the NIVOREN-GETUG AFU 26 phase II trial (NCT03013335). Methods: Patients with mRCC who failed previous VEGFR inhibitors were included. We assessed nivolumab activity, including objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) according to statin intake at baseline. Toxicity was assessed using CTCAE v4.0. Results: Overall,133 patients were treated with statins at baseline among 702 evaluable for concomitant therapies (19%). Among them, median age was 68 (49-90), 84% were male, 85% had a performance status ≥ 80%, 42% were overweight and 20% obese. Patients treated with statins had mostly good (23%) or intermediate (58%) IMDC risk, 64% had grade 3 or 4 tumors, and nivolumab was given in a third line setting or more in 55%. Median follow-up was 23.9 months (95%CI 23.0-24.5) in the overall cohort. The ORR was 26% in patients treated with statins, PFS 5.0 months (CI95% 3.0 – 5.5), OS 27.9 months (CI95% 19.4-30.3). Outcomes of patients with or without statins did not differ significantly. Similar rates of grade 3-5 TRAE were reported in patients with (20%) or without (18%) statin intake. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate statin intake and outcomes with nivolumab in patients with mRCC. Despite numerically higher ORR, statins were not significantly associated with improved outcomes. These data require other analyzes considering other factors such as BMI and other comorbidities. Further studies may help better understand the interplay between immunity and metabolic reprogramming in RCC.

Soluble forms of PD-L1 and PD-1 as prognostic and predictive markers of sunitinib efficacy in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) benefits from several treatment options in the first-line setting with VEGFR inhibitors and/or immunotherapy including anti-PD-L1 or anti-PD1 agents. Identification of predictive biomarkers is highly needed to optimize patient care. Circulating markers could reflect the biology of metastatic disease. Therefore, we evaluated soluble forms of PD-L1 (sPD-L1) and PD-1 (sPD-1) in mccRCC patients. The levels of sPD-L1 and sPD-1 were evaluated from plasma samples of mccRCC patients before they received a first-line treatment (T0) by the VEGFR inhibitor sunitinib (50 patients) or by the anti-VEGF bevacizumab (37 patients). The levels of sPD-L1 and sPD-1 were correlated to clinical parameters and progression-free survival (PFS). High levels of sPD-1 or sPDL1 were not correlated to PFS under bevacizumab while they were independent prognostic factors of PFS in the sunitinib group. Patients with high T0 plasmatic levels of sPD-L1 had a shorter PFS (11.3 vs 22.5 months, p = .011) in the sunitinib group. Equivalent shorter PFS was found with high levels of sPD-1 (8.6 vs 14.1 months, p = .009). mccRCC patients with high plasmatic levels of sPD-L1 or sPD-1 are poor responders to sunitinib. sPD-L1 or sPD-1 could be a valuable tool to guide the optimal treatment strategy including VEGFR inhibitor.

Are immune checkpoint inhibitors a valid option for papillary renal cell carcinoma? A multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the most common non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC). Pivotal studies evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors mostly excluded nccRCC. The aim of this retrospective and multicentre study was to evaluate the activity of programmed death-1 (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors specifically in metastatic pRCC.

METHODS

The primary end-point was time to treatment failure (TTF). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).

RESULTS

From 02/2016 to 01/2019, 57 patients with pRCC were included. Histology included 16 (28%) type 1 pRCC, 34 (60%) type 2 pRCC and 7 (12%) unclassified pRCC. Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors was used in the first-line setting in 4 patients (7%), in the second-line setting in 32 patients (56%) and in the third-line setting or more in 21 patients (37%). With a median follow-up of 12 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.9-21.0), the median TTF was 3.1 months (95% CI: 2.7-5.0). Among the 55 patients evaluable for ORR, best response was complete response/partial response in 6 patients (11%), stable disease in 18 patients (33%) and progressive disease in 31 patients (56%). The median OS was 14.6 months (95% CI: 9.0- not reached). TRAEs of grade III-IV were noted in 6 patients (10%) leading to treatment discontinuation, and no grade V TRAEs were observed.

CONCLUSION

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exhibit limited activity as monotherapy in this pRCC population, which remains an unmet need. Our findings underline the need for further prospective clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations in patients with pRCC.

A randomized phase II study of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus standard of care in previously untreated and advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (SUNIFORECAST)

TPS5103

Background: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (nccRCC) are a heterogeneous group of tumors accounting for approximately 25% of RCC patients (pts.). Since most clinical trials focus on clear-cell RCC (ccRCC) only, data on treatment strategies for nccRCC are limited. The combination of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab (IO/IO) has recently been approved for treatment in RCC showing a significant improvement in overall response rate (ORR), progression free (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in intermediate and high-risk pts. compared to sunitinib in a phase-III trial. Furthermore retrospective analysis in nccRCC patients have shown promising results for IO/IO as well in these entities. Methods: In this prospective randomized phase-II multicenter European trial adults with advanced or metastatic nccRCC without prior systemic therapy are eligible. Other key inclusion criteria include: available tumor tissue, Karnofsky > 70% and measurable disease per RECIST 1.1. All histological diagnoses are reviewed by a central pathologist. The study plans to randomize ~306 pts. stratified for papillary or non-papillary non-clear cell histology and by the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score. Pts. will be randomized 1:1 to either i) Nivolumab 3mg/kg intravenously (IV) plus Ipilimumab 1mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 4 doses followed by Nivolumab fixed dose 240mg IV every 2 weeks or ii) standard of care therapy according to the approved schedule. Treatment will be discontinued in case of unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of informed consent. Pts may continue treatment beyond progression, if clinical benefit is achieved and treatment is well tolerated. Primary endpoint is the OS rate at 12 months. Secondary endpoints include OS rate at 6 and 18 months, median OS, PFS, ORR and quality of life. The trial is in progress and 122 patients (78 pts with papillary, 37 pts with non-papillary histology) have been enrolled until now. Clinical trial information: NCT03075423 .

Utility of a general molecular screening program in patients with GU malignancies: The ProfiLER trial experience

528

Background: Advances in comprehensive tumor molecular pathology in genito-urinary (GU) tumors have driven development of targeted agents since ten years and changed the landscape of GU tumors treatment. We describe our experience with the institutional molecular trial ProfiLER. Methods: Retrospective review of patients with advanced genitourinary malignancies included in the prospective molecular profiling trial ProfiLER (NCT01774409) Tumor samples were analyzed by sequencing a 69 gene panel by next generation sequencing (NGS, Ion torrent PGM system) and whole genome array comparative genomic hybridization (Agilent platform). Clinical data were collected retrospectively. Cases were presented in a molecular board to drive prescription of molecular targeted therapy (MTT) according to the molecular abnormalities observed. Results: Between February 2013 and December 2018 156 adult patients were included, 42 had kidney cancer (including 32 clear cell carcinoma, 5 papillary type 2); 38 prostate cancer, 52 urothelial carcinoma including (16 upper tract), 12 cisplatin-refractory testicular germ cell tumor, 4 penile cancer, 3 adenocarcinoma of the urachus, 2 urethral carcinoma and 3 Leydig cell tumor. Median age at inclusion was 62 years (range 19, 80). Overall NGS and CGH failed in 11.5% of cases, and in 24% of prostate cancer cases.28.8% patients had at least one actionable target (n=45) with a recommended MTT. Only 17.8 % (n=8) patients actually received MTT corresponding to 5.1% of the total screened population. Only one patient had a clinical benefit from MTT. The most frequently initiated MTT were PIK3/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors (44,4%), FGRF/EGFR pathway inhibitors (13.3%) PARP inhibitors (8.7%) or cyclin kinase inhibitors (8.7%). The most frequent reasons for lack of MTT initiation were early death, ineligibility for clinical trials due to general condition. Conclusions: Non tumor-specific molecular profiling is feasible in GU cancers. However the use of targeted sequencing with a tumor type specific panel and at an earlier clinical stage may improve the proportion of MTT recommendations.

Validation of the lung immune prognostic index (LIPI) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab in the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN trial

735

Background: The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) is a prognostic score combining pretreatment dNLR (neutrophils/ (leucocytes-neutrophils) and LDH correlated to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) benefit in several advanced cancers. We aimed to correlate LIPI score with Nivolumab (N) benefit in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) patients. Methods: We investigated the LIPI score in the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN phase II trial assessing the activity and safety of N after failure of upfront VEGF-targeted therapies. A dNLR ≥ 3 and LDH ≥ upper superior limit were analyzed for the LIPI, and patients were stratified into 3 groups (good (GG), intermediate (IG) and poor (PG)) (Mezquita et al, JAMA Oncol 2018). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Results: Overall, 619 pts were included. Median age was 64 years old, 22.1% pts had received more than 2 previous lines and IMDC risk groups were 18.3%, 56.5% and 25.0% for good/intermediate and poor risk respectively. Median (m) follow up was 23.7 months (mo). The mPFS with N was 4.0 mo and mOS was not reach. LIPI classified 364 pts (58.8%) as GG, 216 pts (34.9%) as IG and 39 pts (6.3%) as PG. The PFS and OS results are summarized in the Table. In multivariate analysis, LIPI score remains an independent prognostic factor after adjustment for sex, age, ECOG PS and IMDC. ORR did not seem to be influenced by the LIPI groups. Conclusions: We report for the first time that LIPI score is associated with PFS and OS in patients treated with N for mccRCC. LIPI score appears as an independent prognostic factor even after adjustment for established risk factors. External validation in a VEGF-targeted therapy cohort is ongoing and will contribute to evaluate the predictive value of LIPI in mccRCC.[Table: see text]

NIVOREN GETUG-AFU 26 translational study: Association of PD-1, AXL, and PBRM-1 with outcomes in patients (pts) with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) treated with nivolumab (N)

618

Background: The NIVOREN GETUG-AFU 26 study reported safety and efficacy of N in mccRCC pts in a “real world setting”. A translationnal research program was launched to characterize immune cell populations in the tumor by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and correlate them with outcome on N. Methods: All pts treated with N in the GETUG AFU 26 NIVOREN trial who consented for translational program and with available archived paraffin- embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue samples were eligible. Tumor were centrally reviewed. Using IHC we quantified main immune populations (B-cells, CD8 T-cells, macrophages), and immune checkpoints receptors (TIM-3, LAG-3, PD-1) at the invasive margin (IM) and at the core of the tumor (CT). We also identified AXL and PBRM1/BAP1 expression. Results: Overall 324 pts were included. Pts had similar baseline characteristics (IMDC Good, Intermediate, Poor in 18%, 60% and 22%, respectively) and comparable outcomes than overall trial population (PFS/OS = 4.5 / 25.4 months). PD-1 (IM) expression was associated with better PFS whereas AXL expression by tumor cells (TC) was associated with worse PFS (table). LAG-3 expression tend to be associated with worse OS. PBRM-1 loss (15%) was associated with better OS and PFS and with a higher density of CD8 T-cells (p = 0.001) and CD163-macrophages (p = 0.01) (CT) and a higher expression of LAG-3 (CT) (p = 0.01) and PD-1 (CT) (p = 0.02). BAP-1 loss was not associated with PFS (p = 0.6) nor OS (p = 0.9) in this cohort. Conclusions: We report the largest translational analysis supporting that PD-1 and AXL expression are associated with PFS in pts with mccRCC receiving N. We further confirm that PBRM-1 loss is a strong prognostic factor in this setting.[Table: see text]

Evaluation of brain metastasis in JAVELIN Renal 101: Efficacy of avelumab + axitinib (A+Ax) versus sunitinib (S)

687

Background: Patients (pts) with brain metastasis from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have poor prognosis and are often excluded from randomized registrational trials. The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) for A+Ax vs S in pts with advanced RCC (Motzer NEJM 2019). The activity of A+Ax in pts with brain metastasis enrolled in JAVELIN Renal 101 is presented. Methods: PFS was compared between treatment arms for the subgroup of pts randomized in JAVELIN Renal 101 with brain metastases at enrollment (pts with brain disease site prior to randomization by blinded independent central review [BICR] or by investigator assessment). PFS time was summarized per BICR assessment by treatment arm using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to compute the hazard ratio (HR) and the corresponding CI. In addition, time to brain metastasis was assessed for pts without brain metastasis by BICR at enrollment after treating death as a competing risk. Results: Of all randomized pts (A+Ax arm, N=442; S, N=444), 23 in each arm (5.2%) had asymptomatic brain metastasis at enrollment; of these, pts assigned to A+Ax had a PFS of 4.9 mo (95% CI: 1.6, 5.7) vs 2.8 mo (95% CI: 2.3, 5.6) for pts assigned to S (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.43, 1.88). Among pts without brain metastasis at enrollment, 8 pts on the A+Ax arm and 10 on the S arm developed brain metastasis during the trial, based on BICR assessment; 17/18 occurred ≤12 mo from randomization. The cumulative incidence rate of brain metastasis at 18 mo was 2% (95% CI: 0.6, 3.3) for the A+Ax arm and 3% (95% CI: 1.1, 4.8) for the S arm. Conclusions: In this post hoc exploratory analysis of JAVELIN Renal 101, the observed PFS among pts with brain metastasis at enrollment was similar between the two arms, with HR and median PFS numerically favoring A+Ax. Pts on the S arm had a numerically higher incidence of new brain metastases on trial. Outcomes are poor in pts with advanced RCC and brain metastasis; more effective treatments are needed. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006.

Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Rapidly Progressive to Sunitinib: What to Do Next?

BACKGROUND

From 10% to 26% of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) experience rapidly progressive disease (PD) on treatment with sunitinib.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the benefit of subsequent treatment with another tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) or a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor in such primary refractory patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 150 mRCC patients with rapidly PD on first-line sunitinib (within two cycles, n=93, or four cycles, n=57) were identified: median age 59yr; nephrectomy 86%; histological subtypes: clear cell (77.8%), papillary (14%), and sarcomatoid features (18%); according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and French classifications: good risk (11% and 7%, respectively), intermediate (68% and 63%, respectively), and poor (21% and 29%, respectively).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data were retrospectively collected by a questionnaire from 19 European oncology centers between March 2005 and March 2011. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated (Kaplan-Meier method).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Median OS from the start of first-line treatment was 7.4mo. Second-line treatment was administered to 86 (57%) patients (44 mTOR inhibitors: 23 everolimus and 21 temsirolimus; 39 TKIs alone or in combination; three chemotherapy). Second-line PFS was not significantly different between TKIs and mTOR inhibitors (2.0 vs 0.9mo; p=0.536). Median OS from the start of second-line treatment was 5.0mo for mTOR inhibitors and 6.6mo for TKIs (p=0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with further TKIs or mTOR inhibitors for mRCC patients primarily refractory to first-line sunitinib in the observed time period achieved very minimal benefit, suggesting avoiding TKI rechallenge and possibly preferring alternative strategies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, after PD to a treatment line including a TKI in this setting.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The present work collected data about 150 patients affected by metastatic renal cell carcinoma, who received one of the current standard of care as first-line treatment, namely, the antiangiogenic drug sunitinib, and experienced rapid worsening of the disease. We investigated and described the subsequent outcome of such patients treated with two different types of drug, administered as second-line therapy, to better understand the best strategy to adopt for patients who got no benefit from sunitinib and to describe the current therapeutic approach in such cases.

ILLUMINATE 301: A randomized phase 3 study of tilsotolimod in combination with ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma following progression on or after anti-PD-1 therapy

TPS9599

Background: Tilsotolimod (IMO-2125) is a Toll-like receptor (TLR) 9 agonist with potent immunostimulating activity. In an ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical study in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed on or after anti-PD-1 therapy (NCT02644967), intratumoral (IT) tilsotolimod with ipilimumab was well-tolerated, demonstrating durable responses (including complete response > 21 months), dendritic cell activation, type I interferon response, CD8+ T-cell proliferation in responders, and an abscopal effect. Methods: ILLUMINATE 301 (NCT03445533) is a randomized phase 3 global, multi-center, open-label study of IT tilsotolimod (8 mg) in combination with ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) versus ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma and progression on or after anti-PD-1 therapy. Eligible patients are ≥18 years with histologically confirmed unresectable Stage III or Stage IV melanoma, ≥1 measurable lesion accessible for injection (superficial or visceral, the latter with image guidance), ECOG PS ≤1, and adequate organ function. Exclusion criteria include prior TLR agonists, prior ipilimumab (except adjuvant ≥12 weeks before progression), and CNS disease other than stable brain metastases. Patients are randomized 1:1 and stratified by duration of prior anti-PD-1 (≥12 weeks vs <12 weeks), stage (M1c vs other), and BRAF status/prior targeted therapy (TT) (BRAF wildtype vs BRAF mutation+ with TT vs BRAF mutation+ without TT). Primary endpoints are overall response rate (RECIST v1.1) by independent central review and overall survival. Secondary endpoints include durable response rate, time to response, progression-free survival, patient-reported outcomes, and safety. Patients are enrolling at sites in the United States, European Union, Australia, and Canada. References: (1) Haymaker C. Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Annual Meeting, November 2017, National Harbor, MD; (2) Diab A, et al. European Society of Molecular Oncology Annual Meeting, October 2018, Munich, Germany. Clinical trial information: NCT03445533.

Adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma: does higher risk for recurrence improve the chance for success?

The success of targeted therapies, including inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway or the mammalian target of rapamycin, in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma led to interest in testing their efficacy in the adjuvant setting. Results from the first trials are now available, with other studies due to report imminently. This review provides an overview of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma, including interpretation of currently available conflicting data and future direction of research. We discuss the key differences between the completed targeted therapy adjuvant trials, and highlight the importance of accurately identifying patients who are likely to benefit from adjuvant treatment. We also consider reasons why blinded independent radiology review and treatment dose may prove critical for adjuvant treatment success. The implications of using disease-free survival as a surrogate end point for overall survival from the patient perspective and measurement of health benefit have recently been brought into focus and are discussed. Finally, we discuss how the ongoing adjuvant trials with targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors may improve our understanding and ability to prevent tumor recurrence after nephrectomy in the future.

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

BACKGROUND

Axitinib 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 METHODS

AXIS 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.

RESULTS

Of 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.

CONCLUSION

In 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.

Avelumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).

Are immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) a valid option for papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC)? A multicenter retrospective study

582

Background: pRCC is the most common non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) and represents up to 15% of RCC. Pivotal studies evaluating ICI mostly excluded nccRCC. Therefore the efficacy of ICI in pRCC remains to be demonstrated. Methods: We retrospectively investigated the activity and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (PD-1i) specifically in patients (pts) with metastatic pRCC from 15 centers in France and Belgium. Pts baseline characteristics, treatment outcome and safety were collected. Primary endpoint was time-to-treatment failure (TTF). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Results: From 02/2016 to 09/2018, 50 pRCC pts treated with PD-1i were included. Median age was 63 years (range: 27-84), 36 (72%) were male. Histology included 14 (28%) type 1 pRCC, 30 (60%) type 2 pRCC, 6 (12%) unclassified pRCC. PD-1i was used in first line setting in 5 pts (10%), in second line in 29 pts (58%) and in third line or beyond in 16 pts (32%). IMDC risk group at PD-1i start was 22% good, 44% intermediate and 33% poor. ICI used were PD-1 inhibitors in 47 pts (94%) and PD-L1 inhibitors in 3 pts (6%). PD-1 in was used as monotherapy in 94% of pts. With a median follow up of 10.7 months (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 6.8-14.8), the median TTF was 3.7 months (95% CI: 3.1, 10.1). In type 1, the median TTF was 7.1 months (95% CI: 3.2-NA) and 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.9-NA) in type 2. Median treatment duration was 3.2 months (range: 0.4-24.5, IQR: 2.4-6.4). Among the 45 pts evaluable for ORR, best response was complete response/partial response in 8 pts (16%), stable disease in 13 pts (26%) and progressive disease in 24 pts (48%). ORR was 25% in type 1 pRCC and 15% in type 2 pRCC. Median OS was 17.6 months (95% CI 11.4- not reached). TRAEs of grade 3-4 were noted in 6 patients (12%) which led to treatment discontinuation, no grade 5 were observed. Conclusions: This retrospective study is the largest cohort of metastatic pRCC treated with PD-1i to date. PD-1i exhibit limited activity in this pRCC population, with better TTF and ORR in type 1 pRCC. Our findings underline the need for further prospective clinical trials evaluating ICI combinations in pts with pRCC.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Final analysis from the NIVOREN GETUG AFU 26 study

542

Background: NIVOREN GETUG AFU 26 study, is a French multicenter prospective study to evaluate safety and efficacy of Nivolumab (N) in a broad “real world setting” in mRCC after failure of 1 or 2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Methods: Between February 2016 and June 2017, 729 pts have been enrolled across 27 institutions. Primary objective of the trial was safety assessed by grade ≥ 3 treatment related adverse event (TRAE). Results: Overall, 720 patients treated with N were included in this final analysis. All pts had clear cell mRCC. Median age was 64 years old, 77.4% were male, 84.7% had prior nephrectomy. ECOG PS was >1 in 15.0%, 21.3% pts had received prior everolimus, 22.4% pts had received more than 2 previous lines, IMDC risk groups were 18.3%/56.2%/25.5% for good/intermediate and poor risk respectively. Brain Metastasis at screening was noted in 83 (12.3%) pts. With a median follow up of 20.9 months (mo), median duration of treatment was 5.2 mo (0.5; 28.1) with 15% of pts still on therapy. Median PFS was 3.2 IC 95% [2.9; 4.6] mo. At the time of this analysis, 316 pts have died and 12 mo OS rate was 69% IC 95% [66; 73]. Objective response rate was 20.8% (1.2% CR, 19.6%PR). Stable disease was seen in 31.6% and PD in 47.6%. Noteworthy, 46.1% of pts were treated beyond progression. Overall, 123 pts (17.1%) have presented at least one grade ≥ 3 TRAE, including asthenia (2.4%), metabolic disorders (2.1%), gastro-intestinal disorders (1 .9%), musculoskeletal (1.7%), renal disorders (1.3%), hematologic (1.3%). 6 patients have developed grade 5 toxicity (2 cardiac failure, 1 macrophage activation syndrom, 1 Cerebral hemorrhage, 1 unknown). Treatment discontinuation due to any grade TRAE occurred in 54 pts (7.5%). Interestingly, pts with grade ≥ 3 TRAE had longer PFS than pts without grade ≥ 3 TRAE (HR 0.69 [0.55-0.87]). Conclusions: We report the primary objective analysis of the largest prospective real world setting study of N in mRCC. NIVOREN study demonstrates that N safety and efficacy in a “real world” prospective study are similar to the pivotal study. Grade ≥ 3 TRAE was associated with longer PFS. Clinical trial information: NCT03013335.

Axitinib, cabozantinib, or everolimus in the treatment of prior sunitinib-treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses

Background

In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing axitinib with cabozantinib or everolimus, the aim of this study was to conduct an indirect comparison of their relative efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), using data from the AXIS and METEOR trials.

Methods

Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in prior sunitinib-treated patients with mRCC were compared by conducting matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) analyses, including base-case and sensitivity analyses. Individual patient-level data from prior sunitinib-treated patients who received axitinib in AXIS were weighted to match published baseline characteristics of prior sunitinib-treated patients who received either cabozantinib or everolimus in METEOR.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in PFS (aHR [adjusted hazard ratio] = 1.15 [CI: 0.82–1.63]) and OS (aHR = 1.00 [CI: 0.69–1.46]) between axitinib versus cabozantinib in the base-case analysis. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS (aHR = 1.39 [CI: 1.00–1.92]) and OS (aHR = 1.35 [CI: 0.95–1.92]) were shorter for axitinib compared with cabozantinib; however, the OS difference was not statistically significant. Axitinib was associated with significantly longer PFS compared with everolimus in the base-case (aHR = 0.53 [CI: 0.36–0.80]) and sensitivity analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.45–0.88]), respectively. Results suggested an OS benefit for axitinib versus everolimus in base-case analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.42–0.96]); however, the difference in OS in the sensitivity analysis was not statistically significant (aHR = 0.84 [CI: 0.59–1.18]).

Conclusions

MAIC analyses suggest PFS and OS for axitinib and cabozantinib are dependent on the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center definition used; in the base-case analysis, there was no significant difference in PFS and OS between axitinib and cabozantinib. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS in favour of cabozantinib was significant; however, the trend for prolonged OS with cabozantinib was not significant. For axitinib and everolimus, MAIC analyses indicate patients treated with axitinib may have an improved PFS and OS benefit when compared to everolimus. Disparities between the base-case and sensitivity analyses in this study underscore the importance of adjusting for the differences in baseline characteristics and that naïve indirect comparisons are not appropriate.