Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with either treatment-naive or previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (Study 111/KEYNOTE-146): a phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), there is an unmet need for options to address disease progression during or after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib are active as monotherapies in RCC; thus, we aimed to evaluate the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in these patients. METHODS: We report results of the metastatic RCC cohort from an open-label phase 1b/2 study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients aged at least 18 years with selected solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Oral lenvatinib at 20 mg was given once daily along with intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg once every 3 weeks. Patients remained on study drug treatment until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Efficacy was analysed in patients with clear cell metastatic RCC receiving study drug by previous therapy grouping: treatment naive, previously treated ICI naive (previously treated with at least one line of therapy but not with an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 ICI), and ICI pretreated (ie, anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1) patients. Safety was analysed in all enrolled and treated patients. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate at week 24 per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (irRECIST) by investigator assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02501096) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT2017-000300-26), and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between July 21, 2015, and Oct 16, 2019, 145 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients had non-clear cell RCC and were excluded from the efficacy analysis (one in the treatment-naive group and one in the ICI-pretreated group); thus, the population evaluated for efficacy comprised 143 patients (n=22 in the treatment-naive group, n=17 in the previously treated ICI-naive group, and n=104 in the ICI-pretreated group). All 145 enrolled patients were included in the safety analysis. The median follow-up was 19·8 months (IQR 14·3-28·4). The number of patients with an objective response at week 24 by irRECIST was 16 (72·7%, 95% CI 49·8-89·3) of 22 treatment-naive patients, seven (41·2%, 18·4-67·1) of 17 previously treated ICI-naive patients, and 58 (55·8%, 45·7-65·5) of 104 ICI-pretreated patients. Of 145 patients, 82 (57%) had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events and ten (7%) had grade 4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (30 [21%] of 145 patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 36 (25%) patients, and there were three treatment-related deaths (upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sudden death, and pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed encouraging antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile and might be an option for post-ICI treatment of metastatic RCC. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Effect of a Scalp Cooling Device on Alopecia in Women Undergoing Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: The SCALP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chemotherapy may induce alopecia. Although scalp cooling devices have been used to prevent this alopecia, efficacy has not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial. Objectives: To assess whether a scalp cooling device is effective at reducing chemotherapy-induced alopecia and to assess adverse treatment effects. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial of women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from December 9, 2013, to September 30, 2016. One interim analysis was planned to allow the study to stop early for efficacy. Data reported are from the interim analysis. This study was conducted at 7 sites in the United States, and 182 women with breast cancer requiring chemotherapy were enrolled and randomized. Interventions: Participants were randomized to scalp cooling (n = 119) or control (n = 63). Scalp cooling was done using a scalp cooling device. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end points were successful hair preservation assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 scale (grade 0 [no hair loss] or grade 1 [<50% hair loss not requiring a wig] were considered to have hair preservation) at the end of 4 cycles of chemotherapy by a clinician unaware of treatment assignment, and device safety. Secondary end points included wig use and scores on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a summary scale of the Body Image Scale. Results: At the time of the interim analysis, 142 participants were evaluable. The mean (SD) age of the patients was 52.6 (10.1) years; 36% (n = 51) received anthracycline-based chemotherapy and 64% (n = 91) received taxane-based chemotherapy. Successful hair preservation was found in 48 of 95 women with cooling (50.5%; 95% CI, 40.7%-60.4%) compared with 0 of 47 women in the control group (0%; 95% CI, 0%-7.6%) (success rate difference, 50.5%; 95% CI, 40.5%-60.6%). Because the 1-tailed P value from the Fisher exact test was <.001, which crossed the superiority boundary (P = .0061), the data and safety monitoring board recommended study termination on September 26, 2016. There were no statistically significant differences in changes in any of the scales of quality of life from baseline to chemotherapy cycle 4 among the scalp cooling and control groups. Only adverse events related to device use were collected; 54 adverse events were reported in the cooling group, all grades 1 and 2. There were no serious adverse device events. Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with stage I to II breast cancer receiving chemotherapy with a taxane, anthracycline, or both, those who underwent scalp cooling were significantly more likely to have less than 50% hair loss after the fourth chemotherapy cycle compared with those who received no scalp cooling. Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and adverse effects. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01986140.