Phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab + ipilimumab in treatment-naïve patients (pts) with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort B).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4510-4510
Author(s):  
Michael B. Atkins ◽  
Opeyemi Jegede ◽  
Naomi B. Haas ◽  
David F. McDermott ◽  
Mehmet Asim Bilen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clear Cell ◽  
Metastatic Lesion ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Correlative Studies ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

4510 Background: The HCRN GU16-260 trial reported on the efficacy and toxicity of nivo monotherapy in treatment naïve clear cell RCC (Cohort A) and the efficacy of nivo/ipi salvage therapy in pts with tumors resistant to initial nivo monotherapy (Atkins JCO 2020.38.15_suppl.5006). Limited information is available on the effects of such an approach in pts with advanced nccRCC. Methods: Eligible pts with treatment-naïve nccRCC received nivo 240mg IV q2 wk x 6 doses followed by 360mg IV q3 wk x 4 doses followed by 480 mg q4 wk until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completion of 96 wks of treatment (Part A). Pts with PD prior to or stable disease (SD) at 48 wks (pSD) were potentially eligible to receive salvage nivo (3mg/kg) /ipi (1 mg/kg) q3 wk x 4 doses followed by q4 wk nivo maintenance for up to 48 wks (Part B). All pts were required to submit tissue from a metastatic lesion obtained within 12 months (mo) prior to study entry and prior to enrolling on Part B for correlative studies. Results: 35 pts with nccRCC were enrolled between 5/2017 and 12/2019 at 12 participating HCRN sites. Median age 63 (range 35-84 years); 89% male. IMDC favorable 8 (23%), intermediate 18 (51%) and poor risk 9 (26%). Of the 35 pts 19 (54%) had papillary, 6 (17%) chromophobe and 10 (29%) unclassified histology. RECIST defined ORR was 5 of 35 (14.3%) [CR 2 (5.7%), PR 3 (8.6%)], SD 16 (45.7%), PD 14 (40.0%). Immune-related ORR was 8 of 35 (22.9%). RECIST ORR by histology was: papillary - 1/19 (5%); chromophobe - 1/6 (17%); unclassified - 3/10 (30%). 9 pts (26%) had tumors with sarcomatoid features with 3 (33%) (2 unclassified, 1 papillary) responding. Median PFS was 4.0 (2.7, 4.3) mo. 21 pts remain alive. None of the responders have progressed or died. 28 pts (25 PD, 3 pSD) were potentially eligible for salvage nivo/ipi (Part B), but 12 did not enroll due to symptomatic PD (2), grade 3-4 toxicity on nivo (3), or other including no biopsy tissue (7). In the 16 Part B pts, best response to nivo/ipi was: PR (1, 6%) – (unclassified/non-sarcomatoid); SD (7, 44%); PD (8, 50%). Grade 3 Treatment-related adverse events (TrAEs) were seen in 7/35 (20%) on nivo. Grade 3-5 TrAEs were seen in 7/16 (44%) on nivo/ipi with 1 pt experiencing sudden death. Correlative studies including PD-L1 status, WES and RNAseq are pending. Conclusions: Nivo monotherapy has limited activity in treatment naïve nccRCC with most responses (4 of 5) seen in pts with sarcomatoid and/or unclassified tumors. Toxicity is consistent with prior nivo studies. Salvage treatment with nivo/ipi was provided in 16 of 28 (57%) pts with PD/pSD on nivo monotherapy, with 1 response observed. Clinical trial information: NCT03117309.

Phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab + ipilimumab in treatment-naïve patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (HCRN GU16-260).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5006-5006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. Atkins ◽  
Opeyemi Jegede ◽  
Naomi B. Haas ◽  
David F. McDermott ◽  
Mehmet Asim Bilen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progressive Disease ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Metastatic Lesion ◽  
Poor Risk ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Quantitative Immunofluorescence ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

5006 Background: Nivolumab (nivo) is FDA approved for pts with VEGFR TKI-resistant RCC and the nivo + ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) combination is FDA approved for treatment naïve pts with IMDC intermediate and poor risk RCC. Little information is available on the efficacy and toxicity of nivo monotherapy in treatment naïve RCC or the efficacy of nivo/ipi salvage therapy in pts with tumors resistant to initial nivo monotherapy. Methods: Eligible pts with treatment naïve RCC received nivo 240mg IV q2 wk x 6 doses followed by 360mg IV q3 wk x 4 doses followed by 480 mg q4 wk until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completion of 96 wks of treatment (Part A). Pts with PD prior to or stable disease (SD) at 48 wks (pSD) were potentially eligible to receive salvage nivo (3mg/kg) /ipi (1 mg/kg) q3 wk x 4 doses followed by q4 wk nivo maintenance for up to 48 wks (Part B). All pts were required to submit tissue from a metastatic lesion obtained within 12 months (mo) prior to study entry and prior to Part B. Pathology specimens will be analyzed by immunohistochemistry, quantitative immunofluorescence, WES and RNAseq with results linked to clinical outcome. Results: 123 pts with clear cell(cc) RCC were enrolled between 5/2017 and 12/2019 at 12 participating HCRN sites. Median age 65 (range 32-86 years); 72% male. IMDC favorable 30 (25%), intermediate 79 (65%) and poor risk 12 (10%). 22 (18%) had a component of sarcomatoid histology (SARC). 117 pts are currently evaluable for response. RECIST defined ORR was: 34 (29.3%)[CR 5 (4.3%), PR 29 (24.8%)], SD 47 (40.2%), PD 36 (30.7%). ORR by irRECIST was 35%. ORR by IMDC was: favorable 12/29 (41.4%), intermediate/poor 22/87 (25.3%) and for SARC 6/22 (27.3%). Median DOR is 13.8 (10.9, NA) mo. Median PFS is 7.4 (5.5, 10.9) mo. 110 pts remain alive. 60 pts (54 PD, 6 pSD) to date were potentially eligible for salvage nivo/ipi (Part B), but 28 did not enroll due to symptomatic PD (17), grade 3-4 toxicity on nivo (8), other (3). 27 of 32 Part B pts are currently evaluable for efficacy and 30 for toxicity. Best response to nivo/ipi was PR (11%), SD (30%), PD (59%). ORR by irRECIST was 19%. Grade 3-5 Treatment-related AEs (TrAE) were seen in 35/123 (28)% on nivo with 1 death due to respiratory failure. Grade 3-4 TrAE were seen in 10/30 (33%) on nivo/ipi with 0 deaths. Correlative studies are pending. Conclusions: Nivo monotherapy is active in treatment naïve ccRCC across all IMDC groups. Toxicity is consistent with prior nivo studies. Salvage treatment with nivo/ipi after nivo monotherapy was feasible in 53% of pts with PD/pSD, with 11% responding. Clinical trial information: NCT03117309 .

SYNFRIZZ: A first-in-human (FIH) study of a radiolabeled monoclonal antibody (Mab) targeting frizzled homolog 10 (FZD10) in patients (pts) with advanced synovial sarcomas (SyS).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11054-11054
Author(s):  
Philippe Alexandre Cassier ◽  
Anne Laure Giraudet ◽  
Chicaco Iwao-Fukukawa ◽  
Gwenaelle Garin ◽  
Jean-Noel Badel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Tumor Uptake ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Clinical Investigations ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Synovial Sarcomas ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

11054 Background: Advanced SyS are rare tumors with limited curative options. FZD10 is highly expressed in SyS but not in normal adult tissue. OTSA101 is a MAb targeting FZD10, labelled with a radioisotope. Methods: We conducted a phase I, FIH study including adult pts with advanced, refractory SyS. In part 1, pts received OTSA101 labelled with In111 used as radiotracer to assess biodistribution and tumor uptake. In part 2, pts with significant tumor uptake were randomized to receive OTSA101 labelled with 370MBq of Y90 (Arm A) or 1110MBq Y90 (Arm B). Primary endpoints were occurrence of unacceptable biodistribution /lack of tumor uptake in part 1 and occurrence of related adverse events (AEs) Grade ≥ 3 during the first 8 weeks following injection of Y90OTSA101 in part 2. Responses were assessed per RECIST 1.1. Results: From January 2012 to June 2015, 20 pts (10 females, median age 43, range 21-67) with advanced SyS were enrolled. Ten pts (50%) had sufficient tumor uptake to proceed to part 2 and 8 were randomized (Arm A: 3 and Arm B: 5). Two pts were not randomized due to worsening PS. During part 2, the most common Grade ≥ 3 AEs were haematological, including reversible lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, and were more common in Arm B. One pt with SD after 12 weeks received a 2nd injection of 90Y-OTSA101, but experienced fatal hemoptysis. No objective response was observed. Best response was SD in 5/8 pts lasting up to 21 weeks for 1 pt. Conclusions: This FIH shows that radioimmunotherapy targeting FZD10 is feasible and safe in SyS pts. Tumor uptake was heterogeneous but sufficient to select 50% of pts for 90Y-OTSA101 treatment. Due to limited sample size, further clinical investigations are needed to assess the therapeutic activity of 90Y-OTSA101 with a recommended dose of 1110MBq of 90Y. Clinical trial information: NCT01469975.

Efficacy and safety profile of sunitinib as a first line treatment for advanced/metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: Pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16067-e16067
Author(s):  
Tarek Haykal ◽  
Varun Samji ◽  
Yazan Zayed ◽  
Ragheed Al-Dulaimi ◽  
Inderdeep Gakhal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Grade 3

e16067 Background: Metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is largely incurable, and its treatment remains challenging. Sunitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is one of the current standard-of-care options for treatment-naïve patients with metastatic RCC. Despite the proven efficacy of Sunitinib, prolonged treatment with some tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has been associated with significant adverse events (AEs). Therefore, we aimed to calculate the exact efficacy in addition to the prevalence of all AEs of Sunitinib in a pooled analysis from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A comprehensive electronic database search was conducted for all RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes and adverse events of Sunitinib versus all other available treatments for treatment-naïve advanced/metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. We then calculated the pooled outcomes and prevalence of the most common reported side effects of Sunitinib. All statistical analyses were performed using R Statistical Software v3.4.0 (R Foundation, Vienna, Austria). Results: We included 8 RCTs, with a total of 4106 patients. The mean age was62, with 66.44% males.The efficacy of Sunitinib was reported as 3 main outcomes: Median progression free survival at 10.73 [7.76, 13.7] months, median overall survival at 23.28 [16.74, 29.81] months and the estimated objective response rate at 25[13, 37] %. Any grade AEs were reported in 72% of patients with the following frequencies: fatigue 44%, diarrhea 38%, nausea 31%, hand-foot syndrome 30%, hypertension 27%, dysgeusia 25%, hypothyroidism25%, constipation 20%, stomatitis 20%, inflammation of the mucosa 18%, dyspepsia 16%, vomiting 14%, rash 12%, asthenia 11%, and epistaxis10%.Grade 3&4 (severe) AEs were reported in 52% of patients with the following frequencies: hypertension 9%, fatigue 8%, hand-foot syndrome 5%, asthenia 5%, diarrhea 4%, and inflammation of the mucosa 2%. Conclusions: Despite Sunitinib being one of the current standard treatments for patients with metastatic/advanced clear-cell RCC, with well-described efficacy, its safety profile is still concerning with a significant prevalence of reported grade 3-4 AEs of 52% of the treated patients in the included RCTs. These findings underscore the importance of the emergence of newer drugs and treatment plans for patients with metastatic RCC, not only to achieve similar or better clinical outcomes but also to decrease the percentage of grade 3-4 AEs.

Ipilimumab challenge/re-challenge in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and other genitourinary (GU) tumors treated with cabozantinib+nivolumab (CaboNivo) or cabozantinib+nivolumab+ipilimumab (CaboNivoIpi).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5039-5039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scot Anthony Niglio ◽  
Daniel da Motta Girardi ◽  
Amir Mortazavi ◽  
Primo Lara ◽  
Sumanta K. Pal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clear Cell ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Clear Cell Rcc ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Urachal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Platinum Chemotherapy ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

5039 Background: We investigated challenging/re-challenging pts with ipilimumab (ipi) after progression on CaboNivo or CaboNivoIpi. Methods: In a phase I expansion study, patients with mUC post-platinum chemotherapy and other GU tumors patients who progressed on Cabo 40 mg daily plus nivolumab, 3 mg/kg every 21 days (CaboNivo) alone or with ipi, 1 mg/kg every 21 days for 4 cycles (CaboNivoIpi)-and achieved a PR or SD≥6 mo, were challenged/re-challenged with ipi, 1 mg/kg every 21 days for up to 4 cycles. Restaging scans were done every 6 wks for the first 12 wks, then every 8 wks and evaluated by RECIST 1.1. Results: In total, 24 patients were evaluated: 18 pts (8 UC (5 bladder and 3 upper tract), 4 clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), 3 urachal adenocarcinoma (adeno), 2 bladder adeno, and 1 sarcomatoid clear cell RCC) who progressed on CaboNivo were challenged with ipi. In the challenge group, median (m) follow-up was 21.2 months. One pt achieved a PR in the LNs, but was found to have brain metastases before the next restaging, 13 had SD and 4 had PD. Median duration of PR or SD was 3.6 months (95% CI: 1.4 – 7.8 months). The mOS from start of ipi challenge was 13.9 months (95% CI: 5.8 months- not estimable); mPFS was 4.6 months (95% CI: 1.9 – 8.7 months). Grade 1/2 treatment related adverse events (AEs) occurred in all 18 pts (100%) and ≥Grade 3 (G≥3) AEs occurred in 11 pts (61%). The most common G≥3 AEs were hypophosphatemia (22%), hypertension (6%), adrenal insufficiency (6%), increased AST (6%), and ALT (6%). Six patients (3 bladder UC, 1 penile squamous cell (SCC) carcinoma, 1 urethral SCC, and 1 clear cell RCC with sarcomatoid features) who progressed on CaboNivoIpi were re-challenged with Ipi. On re-challenge, mfollow-up was 20.9 months. There were no PRs, 3 SDs and 3 PDs. mOS from start of re-challenge was 4.0 months (95% CI: 2.2 – 23.3 months) and mPFS was 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.1 – 2.6 months). Grade 1/2 treatment related AEs occurred in all 6 pts (100%) and ≥Grade 3 (G≥3) AEs occurred in 2pts (33%). G≥3 AEs included 1 hypertension (17%) and 1 hyperphosphatemia (17%). Conclusions: Ipi challenge/re-challenge showed low response rates in pts previously treated with CaboNivo or CaboNivoIpi. However, pts treated with CaboNivo who were challenged with ipi had a better OS than patients who had progressed on CaboNivoIpi and were re-challenged with ipi. Larger trials are warranted testing the ipi challenge in pts progressing on CaboNivo. Clinical trial information: NCT02496208 .

Brigatinib (BRG) in patients (pts) with crizotinib (CRZ)-refractory ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases in the pivotal randomized phase 2 ALTA trial.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20502-e20502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sai-Hong Ignatius Ou ◽  
Marcello Tiseo ◽  
D. Ross Camidge ◽  
Myung-Ju Ahn ◽  
Rudolf M. Huber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Metastases ◽  
Review Committee ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
A Site ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

e20502 Background: The CNS is often a site of first disease progression in CRZ-treated ALK+ NSCLC. The ALTA trial is assessing BRG, an investigational next-generation ALK inhibitor, in pts with CRZ-refractory advanced ALK+ NSCLC, including pts with baseline brain metastases. Methods: In ALTA (NCT02094573), pts were stratified by presence of baseline brain metastases and best response to prior CRZ and randomized 1:1 to receive BRG at 90 mg qd (arm A) or 180 mg qd with a 7-d lead-in at 90 mg (arm B). Here, we show data for pts with baseline brain metastases. An independent review committee (IRC) assessed intracranial efficacy. Results: Of 222 pts (112 in arm A; 110 in arm B), 80 (71%)/74 (67%) in A/B had baseline brain metastases per investigators, with median age 49/55 y; 74%/76% had received chemotherapy. As of May 31, 2016, 51%/59% of these pts continued to receive BRG in A/B; median follow-up was 9.6/11.4 mo. Intracranial efficacy is shown in the table. Among these pts, most common treatment-emergent adverse events were: nausea 35%/46% (A/B), headache 30%/31%, vomiting 29%/31%, diarrhea 21%/38%, cough 25%/32%; grade ≥3: increased blood CPK 1%/12%, hypertension 4%/7%, increased lipase 4%/3%. Conclusions: BRG yielded substantial intracranial responses with robust iPFS and acceptable safety in ALK+ NSCLC pts with baseline brain metastases in ALTA. 180 mg (with lead-in) showed consistently improved intracranial efficacy compared with 90 mg. Clinical trial information: NCT02094573. [Table: see text]

Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus axitinib (axi) versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC): Results from 42-month follow-up of KEYNOTE-426.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4500-4500
Author(s):  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Elizabeth R. Plimack ◽  
Viktor Stus ◽  
Tom Waddell ◽  
Rustem Gafanov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Similar Proportion ◽  
First Line ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Superior Efficacy ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Safety Signals

4500 Background: In the first interim analysis of the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study (NCT02853331), treatment with pembro + axi significantly improved OS, PFS, and ORR vs sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive advanced ccRCC. Extended follow-up (median, 30.6 mo) continued to demonstrate the superior efficacy of pembro + axi vs sunitinib monotherapy in this patient population. Here, we present the results of the prespecified final analysis with 42.8-mo median follow-up. Methods: Treatment-naive patients (pts) with advanced ccRCC, KPS ≥70%, and measurable disease (RECIST v1.1) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for up to 35 doses + axi 5 mg orally BID or sunitinib 50 mg orally QD on a 4-wk on/2-wk off schedule until progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by IMDC risk (favorable vs intermediate vs poor) and geographic region (North America vs Western Europe vs Rest of World). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS. Secondary endpoints were ORR, DOR, and safety. The protocol-specified final analysis was based on a target of 404 OS events. No formal hypothesis testing was performed because all efficacy endpoints were met previously at the first interim analysis; nominal P values are reported. Results: Overall, 861 pts were randomly assigned to receive pembro + axi (n=432) or sunitinib (n=429). Median duration of follow-up, defined as time from randomization to the database cutoff date, was 42.8 mo (range, 35.6-50.6). At data cutoff, 418 pts had died: 193 (44.7%) of 432 pts in the pembro + axi arm vs 225 (52.4%) of 429 pts in the sunitinib arm. Compared with sunitinib, pembro + axi improved OS (median: 45.7 vs 40.1 mo; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.60-0.88]; P<0.001) and PFS (median: 15.7 vs 11.1 mo; HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]; P<0.0001). The 42-mo OS rate was 57.5% with pembro + axi vs 48.5% with sunitinib; the 42-mo PFS rate was 25.1% with pembro + axi vs 10.6% with sunitinib. For pembro + axi vs sunitinib, ORR was 60.4% vs 39.6% ( P<0.0001); CR rate was 10.0% vs 3.5%; median DOR was 23.6 mo (range 1.4+ to 43.4+) vs 15.3 mo (range, 2.3-42.8+). Subsequent anticancer therapy was administered to 47.2% of pts in pembro + axi arm vs 65.5% of pts in sunitinib arm. Although a similar proportion of pts in each arm received VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors, only 10.2% of pts in the pembro + axi arm received subsequent treatment with a PD-1/L1 inhibitor compared to 48.7% of pts in the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 42.8 mo, this is the longest follow-up of an anti-PD–1/L1 immunotherapy combined with a VEGF/VEGFR inhibitor for first-line RCC. These results show that pembro + axi continues to demonstrate superior efficacy over sunitinib with respect to OS, PFS, and ORR, with no new safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT02853331.

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Results of a phase 2 trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4509-4509
Author(s):  
Chung-Han Lee ◽  
Martin H Voss ◽  
Maria Isabel Carlo ◽  
Ying-Bei Chen ◽  
Eduard Reznik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Stage Design ◽  
Phase 2 Trial ◽  
Clear Cell Rcc ◽  
Grade 3

4509 Background: Cabozantinib plus nivolumab (CaboNivo) improved objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) over sunitinib in a phase 3 trial for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). (Choueiri, abstract 6960, ESMO 2020) We report the results of a phase 2 trial of CaboNivo in patients (pts) with non-clear cell RCC. Methods: Pts had advanced non-clear cell RCC, 0 or 1 prior systemic therapies excluding prior immune checkpoint inhibitors, and measurable disease by RECIST. Cabo 40 mg/day plus Nivo 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks was given across two cohorts. Cohort 1: papillary, unclassified, or translocation associated RCC; Cohort 2: chromophobe RCC. The primary endpoint was ORR by RECIST; secondary endpoints included PFS, OS, and safety. Cohort 1 was a single stage design that met its primary endpoint and was expanded to produce more precise estimates of ORR. Cohort 2 was a Simon two-stage design that closed early for lack of efficacy. Correlative analyses by next generation sequencing were performed and to be presented. Results: A total of 40 pts were treated in Cohort 1, and 7 pts were treated in Cohort 2 (data cutoff: Jan 20, 2021). Median follow up time was 13.1 months (range 2.2 – 28.6). In Cohort 1, 26 (65%) pts were previously untreated, and 14 (35%) pts had 1 prior line: 10 (25%) received prior VEGF-targeted therapy and 8 (20%) received prior mTOR-targeted therapy. ORR for Cohort 1 was 48% (95% CI 31.5–63.9; Table). Median PFS was 12.5 months (95% CI 6.3–16.4) and median OS was 28 months (95% CI 16.3–NE). No responses were seen among 7 patients in Cohort 2 with chromophobe histology (Table). Grade 3/4 treatment emergent adverse events were consistent with that reported in the phase 3 trial; Grade 3/4 AST and ALT were 9% and 15%, respectively. Cabozantinib and nivolumab were discontinued due to toxicity in 17% and 19% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: CaboNivo had an acceptable safety profile and showed promising efficacy in metastatic non-clear cell RCC pts with papillary, unclassified, or translocation associated histologies whereas activity in patients with chromophobe RCC was limited. Clinical trial information: NCT03635892. [Table: see text]

CLO19-035: Safety Profile and Adverse Events of Sunitinib as a First-Line Treatment for Advanced/Metastatic Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3.5) ◽  
pp. CLO19-035
Author(s):  
Tarek Haykal ◽  
Babikir Kheiri ◽  
Varun Samji ◽  
Yazan Zayed ◽  
Ragheed Al-Dulaimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Treatment Naïve

Background: Metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is largely incurable, and its treatment remains challenging. Sunitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is one of the current standard-of-care options for treatment-naïve patients with metastatic RCC. Despite the proven efficacy of sunitinib, prolonged treatment with some tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has been associated with significant adverse events (AEs). Therefore, we aimed to calculate the exact prevalence of all sunitinib-related AEs in a pooled analysis from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A comprehensive electronic database search was conducted for all RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes and adverse events of sunitinib versus all other available treatments for treatment-naïve advanced/metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. We then calculated the pooled prevalence of the most common reported side effects of sunitinib. All statistical analyses were performed using R Statistical Software v3.4.0 (R Foundation, Vienna, Austria). Results: We included 8 RCTs, with a total of 4,106 patients. The mean age was 62, with 66.44% males. Any grade AEs were reported in 72% of patients with the following frequencies: fatigue, 44%; diarrhea, 38%; nausea, 31%; hand-foot syndrome, 30%; hypertension, 27%; dysgeusia, 25%; hypothyroidism, 25%; cconstipation, 20%; stomatitis, 20%; inflammation of the mucosa, 18%; dyspepsia, 16%; vomiting, 14%; rash, 12%; asthenia, 11%; and epistaxis, 10%. Grade 3 (severe) AEs were reported in 52% of patients with the following frequencies: hypertension, 9%; fatigue, 8%; hand-foot syndrome, 5%; asthenia, 5%; diarrhea, 4%; and inflammation of the mucosa, 2%. Laboratory abnormalities were also reported as follows: increased AST, 7%; increased lipase, 6%; neutropenia, 6%; thrombocytopenia, 6%; hypophosphatemia, 5%; lymphocytopenia, 5%; anemia, 4%; and leukopenia, 3%. Conclusion: Despite sunitinib being one of the current standard treatments for patients with metastatic/advanced clear-cell RCC, its safety profile is concerning, with a high prevalence of reported dangerous side effects. These findings underscore the importance of the emergence of newer drugs and treatment plans for patients with metastatic RCC, not only to achieve similar or better clinical outcomes but also to decrease the burden of adverse events.

A phase II study of intermittent sunitinib (S) in previously untreated patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4515-4515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Laura S. Wood ◽  
Paul Elson ◽  
Hui Zhu ◽  
Namita Chittoria ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Tumor Burden ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Intermittent Therapy ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Prospective Phase ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

4515 Background: S as initial treatment in mRCC is limited by balancing acute and chronic toxicity with clinical benefit. Pre-clinical and retrospective clinical data support that extended treatment breaks are feasible without a reduction in efficacy. Methods: Pts with treatment-naïve clear cell mRCC were enrolled on a prospective phase II trial and initially treated with 4 cycles of S (50 mg 4/2). Pts with ≥ 10% reduction in tumor burden (TB) following 4 cycles had S held, with CT scans approximately every 10 weeks. S was re-initiated for 2 cycles in those pts with an increase in TB by ≥ 10% and again held with ≥ 10% TB reduction. This intermittent S dosing continued until RECIST-defined disease progression while on S. The primary objective was feasibility of intermittent S, defined as the proportion of eligible pts who underwent intermittent therapy. The alternative hypothesis was a feasibility of > 80% vs. a null hypothesis of < 50% (a=0.05; power 80%). Results: Thirty-six pts were enrolled; 70% male, median age 60, 95% PS 0/1 and 32% favorable/65% intermediate by Heng criteria. Twenty pts were eligible for intermittent therapy and all pts (100%) entered the intermittent phase. Pts were not eligible for intermittent S due to PD (n=13); toxicity (n=1) or w/d of consent (n=2) prior to end of cycle #4. Sixteen pts (80%) had ≥ 10% TB increase off S with a median (range) increase of 1.5 cm (1.1-2.5) compared to the TB immediately prior to stopping S, considering all off periods.Four pts did not have ≥ 10% TB increase off S (3 pts after the 1st off period; off for 12, 8 and 5 months to date and 1 pt after the 2nd off period; off for 8 months prior to restarting S). Most pts exhibited a stable saw tooth pattern of TB reduction on S and TB increase off S. No pt had RECIST-defined PD while on S, but 2 pts were taken off extended breaks due to gradual TB increase over time, and 1 pt developed new CNS mets during the 2nd off period.The objective response rate was 53%. Toxicity was typical for S and completely resolved during treatment breaks. Conclusions: S dosing with periodic extended time off drug is feasible and associated with reduction in toxicity during the off periods. Clinical efficacy does not appear to be compromised. Clinical trial information: NCT01158222.

Phase I trial of sunitinib (S) and temsirolimus (T) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 433-433
Author(s):  
Matthew T. Campbell ◽  
Randall E. Millikan ◽  
Emre Altinmakas ◽  
Lianchun Xiao ◽  
Nizar M. Tannir
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Phase I Trial ◽  
Mtor Inhibitors ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
Mean Time

433 Background: Anti-VEGF agents and mTOR inhibitors are mainstay therapies in mRCC. Pre-clinical data suggests synergistic anti-tumor effect when combining these 2 classes. A previous phase I trial using sunitinib (S) 25 mg/d 4 wks on, 2 wks off, and temsirolimus (T) 15 mg/wk was stopped after 2 of the first 3 pts developed dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Methods: Pts with any subtype mRCC (PS 0-1) were eligible. Each cycle consisted of daily S for 14 days on, 7 days off, and weekly T. The continuous reassessment method (CRM) was used. The primary objective was to find the maximum tolerated doses (MTD) of S and T. The total planned accrual was 60 pts. Results: Accrual was stopped after 20 pts received study drugs. Median age was 63.5 years; 13 pts received prior targeted therapy, 7 pts were treatment naïve; median number of prior treatments 1 (range 0-6). Treatment cohorts (#pts, S, T, dose in mg): 2 (S12.5,T6), 1 (S25,T12.5), 1 (S12.5,T8), 8 (S12.5alt25,T9), 2 (S25,T6), 2 (S25alt37.5,T6), 2 (S37.5,T6), 2 (S37.5,T8). Dose reduction was required in 6 of 20 pts; the most common DLT was mucositis in 3 of 20 pts, followed by thrombocytopenia in 2 of 20 pts. The mean number of cycles for all pts was 6.6±5.36, with mean time on study 159±120 days. One pt experienced DLT in cycle 1 and received no study related imaging, 1 had a partial response, 16 pts had stable disease, and 2 pts had progressive disease (PD) as best response. A total of 21 grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) attributed to drug occurred in 11 of 20 pts. Reasons for study discontinuation were PD in 12 pts, toxicity in 6 pts, and pt preference in 2 pts. There were no treatment related deaths. Conclusions: The MTD of S and T using the CRM were not reached due to premature trial closure. However, we believe S 37.5 mg/d, 2 wks on, 1 wk off, and T 8-10 mg weekly may well be close to MTD. Clinical trial information: NCT01122615.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document