Treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with nivolumab (CheckMate 274 study): a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a paper published in a medical journal that describes the results of a study called CheckMate 274. This study looked at a new treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer, a type of cancer found in the urinary tract that has spread from the inner lining of the urinary tract or bladder and into the surrounding muscle wall where it can then spread to other parts of the body. The standard treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer is surgery to remove affected parts of the urinary tract. However, cancer returns in more than half of people after this surgery. Adjuvant therapy is given to people after surgery with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with a goal to reduce the risk of the cancer coming back; however, at the time this study started, there was no standard adjuvant treatment. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STUDY?: In the CheckMate 274 study, researchers compared nivolumab with a placebo as an adjuvant treatment for people with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer. The aim of the study was to understand how well nivolumab worked to reduce the chance of the cancer returning after surgery. The study also looked at what side effects (unwanted or unexpected results or conditions that are possibly related to the use of a medication) people had with treatment. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The results showed that people who received nivolumab versus placebo: Survived longer before the cancer was detected again, including people who had programmed death ligand-1 (shortened to PD-L1) on their cancer cells. Survived longer before a secondary cancer outside of the urinary tract was detected. Experienced no differences in health-related quality of life (the impact of the treatment on a person's mental and physical health). Had similar side effects to the people who received nivolumab in other studies. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02632409 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Placebo in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant treatment in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery is not clear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery to receive, in a 1:1 ratio, either nivolumab (240 mg intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy before trial entry was allowed. The primary end points were disease-free survival among all the patients (intention-to-treat population) and among patients with a tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level of 1% or more. Survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 353 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab and 356 to receive placebo. The median disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5 to 27.6) with nivolumab and 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.9) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and disease-free at 6 months was 74.9% with nivolumab and 60.3% with placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.70; 98.22% CI, 0.55 to 0.90; P<0.001). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 74.5% and 55.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 98.72% CI, 0.35 to 0.85; P<0.001). The median survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract in the intention-to-treat population was 22.9 months (95% CI, 19.2 to 33.4) with nivolumab and 13.7 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 20.3) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract at 6 months was 77.0% with nivolumab and 62.7% with placebo (hazard ratio for recurrence outside the urothelial tract or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 75.3% and 56.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.79). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 17.9% of the nivolumab group and 7.2% of the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths due to pneumonitis were noted in the nivolumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery, disease-free survival was longer with adjuvant nivolumab than with placebo in the intention-to-treat population and among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 274 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02632409.).

Immune adverse events (irAEs) with adjuvant ipilimumab in melanoma, use of immunosuppressants and association with outcome: ECOG-ACRIN E1609 study analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) occurring from adjuvant use of immunotherapy and of their management on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes is currently not well understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: E1609 enrolled 1673 patients with resected high-risk melanoma and evaluated adjuvant ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and 10 mg/kg (ipi10) versus interferon-α. We investigated the association of irAEs and of use of immunosuppressants with RFS and OS for patients treated with ipilimumab (n=1034). RESULTS: Occurrence of grades 1-2 irAEs was associated with RFS (5 years: 52% (95% CI 47% to 56%) vs 41% (95% CI 31% to 50%) with no AE; p=0.006) and a trend toward improved OS (5 years: 75% (95% CI 71% to 79%) compared with 67% (95% CI 56% to 75%) with no AE; p=0.064). Among specific irAEs, grades 1-2 rash was most significantly associated with RFS (p=0.002) and OS (p=0.003). In multivariate models adjusting for prognostic factors, the most significant associations were seen for grades 1-2 rash with RFS (p<0.001, HR=0.70) and OS (p=0.01, HR=0.71) and for grades 1-2 endocrine+rash with RFS (p<0.001, HR=0.66) and OS (p=0.008, HR=0.7). Overall, grades 1-2 irAEs had the best prognosis in terms of RFS and OS and those with grades 3-4 had less RFS benefits and no OS advantage over no irAE. Patients experiencing grades 3-4 irAE had significantly higher exposure to corticosteroids and immunosuppressants than those with grades 1-2 (92% vs 60%; p<0.001), but no significant associations were found between corticosteroid and immunosuppressant use and RFS or OS. In investigating the impact of non-corticosteroid immunosuppressants, although there were trends toward better RFS and OS favoring cases who were not exposed, no significant associations were found. CONCLUSIONS: Rash and endocrine irAEs were independent prognostic factors of RFS and OS in patients treated with adjuvant ipilimumab. Patients experiencing lower grade irAEs derived the most benefit, but we found no significant evidence supporting a negative impact of high dose corticosteroids and immunosuppressants more commonly used to manage grades 3-4 irAEs.

Phase I clinical trial of temozolomide and methoxyamine (TRC-102), an inhibitor of base excision repair, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Temozolomide (TMZ) generates DNA adducts that are repaired by direct DNA and base excision repair mechanisms. Methoxyamine (MX, TRC-102) potentiates TMZ activity by binding to apurinic and apyrimidinic (AP) sites after removal of N3-methyladenine and N7-methylguanine, inhibiting site recognition of AP endonuclease. We conducted a phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of intravenous MX when given with oral TMZ. Patients with advanced solid tumors and progression on standard treatment were enrolled to a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation trial assessing escalating doses of TMZ and MX. Tumor response was assessed per RECIST and adverse events (AEs) by CTCAEv3. Pharmacokinetics (PK) of MX and COMET assays on peripheral blood mononuclear cells were performed. 38 patients were enrolled-median age 59.5 years (38-76), mean number of cycles 2.9 [1-13]. No DLTs were observed. Cycle 1 grade 3 AEs included fatigue, lymphopenia, anemia, INR, leukopenia, neutropenia, allergic reaction, constipation, psychosis and paranoia. Cycle 2-13 grade 4 AEs included thrombocytopenia and confusion. A partial response was seen in 1 patient with a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET) and six additional patients, each with different tumor types, demonstrated prolonged stable disease. MX PK was linear with dose and was not affected by concomitant TMZ. TMZ 200 mg/m2 daily × 5 may be safely administered with MX 150 mg/m2 intravenously once on day 1 with minimal toxicity. Further studies assessing this drug combination in select tumor types where temozolomide has activity may be warranted.

Evolving impact of long-term survival results on metastatic melanoma treatment.

Melanoma treatment has been revolutionized over the past decade. Long-term results with immuno-oncology (I-O) agents and targeted therapies are providing evidence of durable survival for a substantial number of patients. These results have prompted consideration of how best to define long-term benefit and cure. Now more than ever, oncologists should be aware of the long-term outcomes demonstrated with these newer agents and their relevance to treatment decision-making. As the first tumor type for which I-O agents were approved, melanoma has served as a model for other diseases. Accordingly, discussions regarding the value and impact of long-term survival data in patients with melanoma may be relevant in the future to other tumor types. Current findings indicate that, depending on the treatment, over 50% of patients with melanoma may gain durable survival benefit. The best survival outcomes are generally observed in patients with favorable prognostic factors, particularly normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase and/or a low volume of disease. Survival curves from melanoma clinical studies show a plateau at 3 to 4 years, suggesting that patients who are alive at the 3-year landmark (especially in cases in which treatment had been stopped) will likely experience prolonged cancer remission. Quality-of-life and mixture-cure modeling data, as well as metrics such as treatment-free survival, are helping to define the value of this long-term survival. In this review, we describe the current treatment landscape for melanoma and discuss the long-term survival data with immunotherapies and targeted therapies, discussing how to best evaluate the value of long-term survival. We propose that some patients might be considered functionally cured if they have responded to treatment and remained treatment-free for at least 2 years without disease progression. Finally, we consider that, while there have been major advances in the treatment of melanoma in the past decade, there remains a need to improve outcomes for the patients with melanoma who do not experience durable survival.

Bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Phase III PIVOT IO 001 study design.

Nivolumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, has demonstrated prolonged survival benefit in patients with advanced melanoma. Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214), a first-in-class CD122-preferential IL-2 pathway agonist, provides sustained signaling through the IL-2ßγ receptor, which activates effector T and natural killer cells. In the Phase I/II PIVOT-02 trial, the combination of bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. Here, we describe the design of and rationale for the Phase III, global, randomized, open-label PIVOT IO 001 trial comparing bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab with nivolumab alone in patients with previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Primary end points include objective response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Key secondary end points include further investigation of safety/tolerability, previously assessed in the PIVOT-02 trial. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03635983 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Phase III Study of Adjuvant Ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) Versus High-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b for Resected High-Risk Melanoma: North American Intergroup E1609.

PURPOSE: Phase III adjuvant trials have reported significant benefits in both relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) for high-dose interferon alfa (HDI) and ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg (ipi10). E1609 evaluated the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and ipi10 versus HDI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: E1609 was a phase III trial in patients with resected cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition stage IIIB, IIIC, M1a, or M1b). It had 2 coprimary end points: OS and RFS. A 2-step hierarchic approach first evaluated ipi3 versus HDI followed by ipi10 versus HDI. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and August 2014, 1,670 adult patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1) to ipi3 (n = 523), HDI (n = 636), or ipi10 (n = 511). Treatment-related adverse events grade ≥ 3 occurred in 37% of patients receiving ipi3, 79% receiving HDI, and 58% receiving ipi10, with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in 35%, 20%, and 54%, respectively. Comparison of ipi3 versus HDI used an intent-to-treat analysis of concurrently randomly assigned patient cases (n = 1,051) and showed significant OS difference in favor of ipi3 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95.6% repeated CI, 0.61 to 0.99; P = .044; RFS: HR, 0.85; 99.4% CI, 0.66 to 1.09; P = .065). In the second step, for ipi10 versus HDI (n = 989), trends in favor of ipi10 did not achieve statistical significance. Salvage patterns after melanoma relapse showed significantly higher rates of ipilimumab and ipilimumab/anti-programmed death 1 use in the HDI arm versus ipi3 and ipi10 (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with ipi3 benefits survival versus HDI; for the first time to our knowledge in melanoma adjuvant therapy, E1609 has demonstrated a significant improvement in OS against an active control regimen. The currently approved adjuvant ipilimumab dose (ipi10) was more toxic and not superior in efficacy to HDI.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced sarcoidosis-like granulomas.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 and programmed cell death-1 receptors have transformed the treatment of melanoma and other cancers. These therapies are associated with a number of side effects, including immune-related adverse events. Sarcoidosis-like granulomas (SLGs) are important immune checkpoint inhibitor-related reactions to recognize as SLGs can mimic disease progression and accordingly impact treatment decisions. We systematically review reports of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced SLGs in cancer patients and discuss potential underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.

Rational design of anti-GITR-based combination immunotherapy.

Modulating T cell homeostatic mechanisms with checkpoint blockade can efficiently promote endogenous anti-tumor T cell responses1-11. However, many patients still do not benefit from checkpoint blockade12, highlighting the need for targeting of alternative immune pathways13. Glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor-related protein (GITR) is an attractive target for immunotherapy, owing to its capacity to promote effector T cell (Teff) functions14,15 and hamper regulatory T cell (Treg) suppression16-20. On the basis of the potent preclinical anti-tumor activity of agonist anti-GITR antibodies, reported by us and others16,21,22, we initiated the first in-human phase 1 trial of GITR agonism with the anti-GITR antibody TRX518 ( NCT01239134 ). Here, we report the safety profile and immune effects of TRX518 monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer and provide mechanistic preclinical evidence to rationally combine GITR agonism with checkpoint blockade in future clinical trials. We demonstrate that TRX518 reduces circulating and intratumoral Treg cells to similar extents, providing an easily assessable biomarker of anti-GITR activity. Despite Treg reductions and increased Teff:Treg ratios, substantial clinical responses were not seen. Similarly, in mice with advanced tumors, GITR agonism was not sufficient to activate cytolytic T cells due to persistent exhaustion. We demonstrate that T cell reinvigoration with PD-1 blockade can overcome resistance of advanced tumors to anti-GITR monotherapy. These findings led us to start investigating TRX518 with PD-1 pathway blockade in patients with advanced refractory tumors ( NCT02628574 ).

Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare solid tumors of mesenchymal cell origin that display a heterogenous mix of clinical and pathologic characteristics. STS can develop from fat, muscle, nerves, blood vessels, and other connective tissues. The evaluation and treatment of patients with STS requires a multidisciplinary team with demonstrated expertise in the management of these tumors. The complete NCCN Guidelines for STS provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of extremity/superficial trunk/head and neck STS, as well as intra-abdominal/retroperitoneal STS, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, desmoid tumors, and rhabdomyosarcoma. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines discusses general principles for the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of STS of the extremities, superficial trunk, or head and neck; outlines treatment recommendations by disease stage; and reviews the evidence to support the guidelines recommendations.

A phase 2 trial of dasatinib in patients with locally advanced or stage IV mucosal, acral, or vulvovaginal melanoma: A trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E2607).

BACKGROUND: KIT-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib have demonstrated benefits in KIT-mutant (KIT+) mucosal, acral, vulvovaginal, and chronically sun-damaged (CSD) melanoma. Dasatinib has superior preclinical activity in comparison with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors against cells with the most common KIT mutation, exon 11L576P . The ECOG-ACRIN E2607 trial assessed dasatinib in patients with these melanoma subtypes. METHODS: Patients received 70 mg of oral dasatinib twice daily. The primary objective for this 2-stage phase 2 trial was response rate. Stage I was open to KIT+ and wild-type KIT (KIT-) mucosal, acral, and CSD melanoma (n = 57). Stage II accrued only KIT+ tumors (n = 30). To enrich the trial for KIT+ tumors, vulvovaginal melanoma was added, and CSD melanoma was removed from eligibility. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: From May 2009 to December 2010, the first stage enrolled 57 patients. Among the evaluable patients, 3 of 51 (5.9%) achieved a partial response: all were KIT-. Stage II closed early because of slow accrual (November 2011 to December 2015). In stage II, 4 of 22 evaluable patients (18.2%) had a partial response; the median duration was 4.2 months. The median PFS was 2.1 months (n = 73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.9 months). The median OS was 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.0-11.9 months). In exploratory analyses, no differences were seen in PFS or OS with the KIT status or subtype. Dasatinib was discontinued because of adverse events in 9 of 75 patients (12%). CONCLUSIONS: The dasatinib response rate among KIT+ melanoma patients was low. In view of its clinical activity, it is recommended that imatinib remain the KIT tyrosine kinase inhibitor of choice for unresectable KIT+ melanoma. Cancer 2017;123:2688-97. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Phase II study of vemurafenib followed by ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab (IPI), an anti-CTLA-4 antibody, and vemurafenib (VEM), a BRAF inhibitor, have distinct mechanisms of action and shared toxicities (e.g., skin, gastrointestinal [GI] and hepatobiliary disorders) that may preclude concomitant administration. Concurrent administration of IPI and VEM previously showed significant dose-limiting hepatotoxicity in advanced melanoma. This single-arm, open-label, phase II study evaluated a sequencing strategy with these two agents in previously untreated patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. METHODS: This study was divided into two parts. During Part 1 (VEM1-IPI), patients received VEM 960 mg twice daily for 6 weeks followed by IPI 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses (induction), then every 12 weeks (maintenance) beginning at week 24 until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. During Part 2 (VEM2), patients who progressed after IPI received VEM at their previously tolerated dose. The primary objective was to estimate the incidence of grade 3/4 drug-related skin adverse events (AEs) during VEM1-IPI. RESULTS: All patients who were initially treated with VEM (n = 46) received IPI induction therapy; 8 received IPI maintenance and 19 were treated during VEM2. During VEM1-IPI, the incidence of grade 3/4 drug-related AEs associated with the skin, GI tract, and hepatobiliary system was 32.6 %, 21.7 %, and 4.3 %, respectively. There were no drug-related deaths. At a median follow-up of 15.3 months, median overall survival was 18.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 4.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: VEM (960 mg twice daily for 6 weeks) followed by IPI 10 mg/kg has a manageable safety profile. The benefits/risks of BRAF inhibitors followed by immunotherapy should be evaluated further in light of continuing developments in treatment options for metastatic melanoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01673854 (CA184-240) Registered 24 August 2012.

Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Version 2.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare solid tumors of mesenchymal cell origin that display a heterogenous mix of clinical and pathologic characteristics. STS can develop from fat, muscle, nerves, blood vessels, and other connective tissues. The evaluation and treatment of patients with STS requires a multidisciplinary team with demonstrated expertise in the management of these tumors. The complete NCCN Guidelines for Soft Tissue Sarcoma (available at NCCN.org) provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of extremity/superficial trunk/head and neck STS, as well as intra-abdominal/retroperitoneal STS, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, desmoid tumors, and rhabdomyosarcoma. This manuscript discusses guiding principles for the diagnosis and staging of STS and evidence for treatment modalities that include surgery, radiation, chemoradiation, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy.

Parotid melanoma of unknown primary.

PURPOSE: Rarely, melanoma is discovered in the parotid gland without an identifiable primary site. It is not known how patients with parotid melanoma of unknown primary (PMUP) compare to those with a known primary (PMKP). As such, we describe the largest series of patients with PMUP to date and compare them to patients with PMKP. METHODS: We analyzed cases from three sources: (1) the University Hospitals Case Medical Center pathology database (n = 45), (2) the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 database (n = 33), and (3) a comprehensive literature search (n = 32). RESULTS: PMUP patients were predominately male and presented at a mean age of 56 years. When compared to PMKP, PMUP cases were more likely to be diagnosed in the parotid parenchyma, present with stage IV disease, and develop distant metastases during follow-up in a shorter amount of time. However, there was no difference in overall survival between patients with PMUP and PMKP presenting with stage-matched disease. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival is similar for stage-matched patients with parotid melanoma presenting with an unknown and known primary site.

Current systemic therapies for melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Systemic agents are used in melanoma for adjuvant therapy and to treat metastatic disease. Currently, interferon-α is the only agent approved for adjuvant therapy. Six drugs are FDA approved for metastatic disease: dacarbazine, interleukin-2 (IL-2), vemurafenib, ipilimumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib. Vemurafenib and ipilimumab were approved in 2011, whereas dabrafenib and trametinib were approved in 2013. OBJECTIVE: This review will update the practicing dermatologist on the differences in efficacy, adverse events, and cost of systemic therapies available for the treatment of melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article is a review of the current literature on systemic therapies for advanced melanoma. Key search words included "advanced melanoma," "systemic therapy," and "adjuvant therapy" with particular focus on the past 20 years. RESULTS: Before 2011, dacarbazine and IL-2 were the only FDA approved therapies for metastatic melanoma, and IFN-α is the only approved agent for adjuvant therapy. The new agents vemurafenib, ipilimumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib are the first to have improved overall survival in Phase III studies in comparison with other systemic therapies. CONCLUSION: Despite new developments, there remains a significant need for better therapies with improved long-term efficacy and decreased toxicity.

Delayed response in ipilimumab therapy.

Metastatic melanoma is a deadly disease with a 5-year survival rate lower than 20%. In 2011, ipilimumab, a fully humanized antibody that binds to cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration based on improved survival in a pivotal trial. CTLA4 is a molecule on cytotoxic T-lymphocytes that plays a critical role in attenuating immune responses. Ipilimumab blocks the binding of B7, the ligand of CTLA4, thereby blocking the activation of CTLA4 and sustaining antitumor immune responses. The time course to response can be variable with immunotherapeutics. We report on a patient who experienced a considerable delay before responding to ipilimumab.

Update on primary mucosal melanoma.

Mucosal melanomas are aggressive cancers of mucosal surfaces with clinical and pathologic characteristics distinct from cutaneous melanomas, warranting different staging systems and treatment approaches. Surgical resection is performed frequently for the primary tumor, although the utility of lymph node surgery and radiation therapy is not established. Therapies targeted against C-KIT activating mutations, identified in many mucosal melanomas, are emerging as promising treatments.

Dual VEGF/VEGFR inhibition in advanced solid malignancies: clinical effects and pharmacodynamic biomarkers.

Our prior phase I study of the combination of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody, bevacizumab, and VEGF receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor, sunitinib, in advanced solid tumors identified an encouraging response evaluation. An expansion phase of this study was thus undertaken to obtain further safety data, response assessment and characterization of pharmacodynamic biomarkers in melanoma, renal, and adrenal carcinoma patients. Patients with metastatic solid tumors received sunitinib (37.5 mg/d, 4 wk on/2 wk off) and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk). Responses were assessed every 2 cycles. Serum levels of angiogenic molecules were measured using ELISA assays. Twenty-two patients were enrolled, including 11 melanoma, 5 renal cell carcinoma (RCC), 5 adrenal cancer, and 1 angiosarcoma. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 15 patients, including hypertension (41%), thrombocytopenia (23%), and fatigue (14%). Three RCC patients, and 1 melanoma patient developed thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). Partial response (PR) occurred in 21% patients, including melanoma (2), adrenal (1), and renal (1) carcinomas. Overall, 6 patients demonstrated some reduction in their tumor burden. Serum VEGF and several other proangiogenic proteins declined over the first 4 wk of treatment whereas the putative VEGF-resistant protein, prokineticin-2, increased over 10-fold. Occurrence of TMA related to dual VEGF/VEGFR inhibition can result from systemic or nephron specific injury even in non-renal malignancies. While the combination of sunitinib and bevacizumab was clinically efficacious in renal cell carcinoma and melanoma, the observance of microangiopathy, even in non-RCC patients, is a significant toxicity that precludes further clinical development.