Efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by numbers of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline in advanced renal cell carcinoma: long-term follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, first-line avelumab + axitinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (favorable, intermediate, and poor); analyses of overall survival (OS) remain immature. Here, we report post hoc analyses of efficacy from the third interim analysis (data cut-off, April 2020) by the numbers of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline. METHODS: Efficacy endpoints assessed were PFS, objective response, and best overall response per investigator assessment (RECIST v1.1) and OS. Best percentage change and percentage change from baseline in target tumor size over time during the study were also assessed. RESULTS: In patients with 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4-6 IMDC risk factors, hazard ratios [HRs; 95% confidence interval (CIs)] for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.660 (0.356-1.223), 0.745 (0.524-1.059), 0.973 (0.668-1.417), 0.718 (0.414-1.248), and 0.443 (0.237-0.829), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.490-1.016), 0.709 (0.540-0.933), 0.711 (0.527-0.960), 0.501 (0.293-0.854), and 0.395 (0.214-0.727), respectively. In patients with 1, 2, 3, or ≥4 target tumor sites, HRs (95% CIs) for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.912 (0.640-1.299), 0.715 (0.507-1.006), 0.679 (0.442-1.044), and 0.747 (0.346-1.615), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.548-0.911), 0.552 (0.422-0.723), 0.856 (0.589-1.244), and 0.662 (0.329-1.332), respectively. Across all subgroups, analyses of objective response rate and complete response rate favored avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib, and a greater proportion of patients treated with avelumab + axitinib had tumor shrinkage. CONCLUSIONS: In post hoc analyses, first-line treatment with avelumab + axitinib was generally associated with efficacy benefits versus treatment with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across subgroups defined by different numbers of IMDC risk factors or target tumor sites.

Extended follow-up from JAVELIN Renal 101: subgroup analysis of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We report updated data for avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the third interim analysis of the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response per investigator assessment (RECIST version 1.1) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in the overall population and in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups; safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was not reached [42.2 months-not estimable (NE)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus 37.8 months (31.4-NE) with sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.643-0.969; one-sided P = 0.0116], and median PFS (95% CI) was 13.9 months (11.1-16.6 months) versus 8.5 months (8.2-9.7 months), respectively (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.568-0.785; one-sided P < 0.0001). In patients with IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, poor-, or intermediate plus poor-risk disease, respectively, HRs (95% CI) for OS with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.66 (0.356-1.223), 0.84 (0.649-1.084), 0.60 (0.399-0.912), and 0.79 (0.636-0.983), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.71 (0.490-1.016), 0.71 (0.578-0.866), 0.45 (0.304-0.678), and 0.66 (0.550-0.787), respectively. ORRs, complete response rates, and durations of response favored avelumab plus axitinib overall and across all risk groups. In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, 81.1% had a grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and incidences of TEAEs and immune-related AEs were highest <6 months after randomization. CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab plus axitinib continues to show improved efficacy versus sunitinib and a tolerable safety profile overall and across IMDC risk groups. The OS trend favors avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib, but data remain immature; follow-up is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02684006; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02684006.

AuduBon-Bons: Bite-Sized Learning for Residents in the Ambulatory Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic.

Background: While most medical education happens in the inpatient setting, the vast majority of medicine is practiced in the outpatient setting. Graduates from our obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) program consistently report lower confidence and comfort in the ambulatory, as opposed to inpatient, setting. Objective: To describe and evaluate a novel curriculum, delivered in an ambulatory clinic covering ambulatory care topics, and to assess its feasibility in a single site OB/GYN residency program. Methods: We created an ambulatory curriculum, comprising short modules delivered in the ambulatory clinic during the first 15 minutes of every half-day clinic session. Modules were delivered using a flipped classroom format with pre-session assignments during the 2019-2020 academic year. Outcomes were residents' pre- and post-session comfort and confidence and module developers' time to create the curriculum. Time tracking was performed. Results: On average, 11 residents were present for the teaching session weekly. Twenty-four residents and 6 faculty were eligible to complete pre- and post-session surveys. For every weekly session, the average resident comfort level and the average resident confidence level with the module's topic increased from the pre-module survey to the post-module survey. Residents completed pre-module assignments 64.8% (236 of 364) of the time, and of residents who completed the pre-work, 89.4% (211 of 236) reported it was useful. Average survey completion rate was 70.5% (1398 of 1984). Conclusions: We showed that it is feasible to create and implement an ambulatory curriculum for residents in OB/GYN, and this curriculum increased resident's comfort and confidence with ambulatory practice.

Efficacy and safety of avelumab plus axitinib in elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, first-line avelumab plus axitinib demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) benefit versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). However, efficacy in elderly patients remains unclear. We report efficacy and safety by age group from the second interim analysis of overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: PFS and ORR as per blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1), OS, and safety were assessed in patient groups aged <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years. RESULTS: In the avelumab plus axitinib and sunitinib arms, 271/138/33 and 275/128/41 patients aged <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years, respectively, were randomized. At data cut-off (January 2019), median PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in these respective age groups was 11.6 (8.4-19.4) versus 6.9 (5.6-8.4) months [hazard ratio (HR), 0.63; 95% CI 0.501-0.786], 13.8 (11.1-18.0) versus 11.0 (7.8-16.6) months (HR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.627-1.231), and 13.8 [7.0-not estimable (NE)] versus 9.8 (4.3-NE) months (HR, 0.76; 95% CI 0.378-1.511). Median OS (95% CI) in the respective age groups was not reached (NR) (NE-NE) versus 28.6 (25.5-NE) months (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.541-1.022), 30.0 (30.0-NE) versus NR (NE-NE) months (HR, 0.89; 95% CI 0.546-1.467), and 25.3 (19.9-NE) versus NR (19.4-NE) months (HR, 0.87; 95% CI 0.359-2.106). ORR (95% CI) in the respective age groups was 49.4% (43.3% to 55.6%) versus 27.3% (22.1% to 32.9%), 60.9% (52.2% to 69.1%) versus 28.9% (21.2% to 37.6%), and 42.4% (25.5% to 60.8%) versus 22.0% (10.6% to 37.6%). In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and immune-related AEs occurred in 76.9%/81.2%/72.7% and 45.5%/48.1%/36.4% in the respective age groups. CONCLUSIONS: First-line avelumab plus axitinib demonstrated favorable efficacy across age groups, including patients aged ≥75 years. OS data were still immature; follow-up is ongoing. The safety profile was generally consistent across age groups.

Efficacy and correlative analyses of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), those with sarcomatoid histology (sRCC) have the poorest prognosis. This analysis assessed the efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with treatment-naive advanced sRCC. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) enrolled patients with treatment-naive advanced RCC. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib following standard doses and schedules. Assessments in this post hoc analysis of patients with sRCC included efficacy (including progression-free survival) and biomarker analyses. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients had sarcomatoid histology and were included in this post hoc analysis; 47 patients in the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 61 in the sunitinib arm. Patients in the avelumab plus axitinib arm had improved progression-free survival [stratified hazard ratio, 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.325-1.003)] and a higher objective response rate (46.8% versus 21.3%; complete response in 4.3% versus 0%) versus those in the sunitinib arm. Correlative gene expression analyses of patients with sRCC showed enrichment of gene pathway scores for cancer-associated fibroblasts and regulatory T cells, CD274 and CD8A expression, and tumors with The Cancer Genome Atlas m3 classification. CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup analysis of JAVELIN Renal 101, patients with sRCC in the avelumab plus axitinib arm had improved efficacy outcomes versus those in the sunitinib arm. Correlative analyses provide insight into this subtype of RCC and suggest that avelumab plus axitinib may increase the chance of overcoming the aggressive features of sRCC.

Association of clinical factors and recent anticancer therapy with COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer: a report from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anticancer therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between 17 March and 18 November 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anticancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients). RESULTS: A total of 4966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count; high absolute neutrophil count; low platelet count; abnormal creatinine; troponin; lactate dehydrogenase; and C-reactive protein were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anticancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anticancer therapies. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT04354701.

First-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a decision-making analysis among experts.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) has been transformed by targeted therapies with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and more recently by the incorporation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Today, a spectrum of single agent TKI to TKI/ICI and ICI/ICI combinations can be considered and the choice of the best regimen is complex. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an updated decision-making analysis among 11 international kidney cancer experts. Each expert provided their treatment strategy and relevant decision criteria in the first line treatment of mccRCC. After the collection of all input a list of unified decision criteria was determined and compatible decision trees were created. We used a methodology based on diagnostic nodes, which allows for an automated cross-comparison of decision trees, to determine the most common treatment recommendations as well as deviations. RESULTS: Diverse parameters were considered relevant for treatment selection, various drugs and drug combinations were recommended by the experts. The parameters, chosen by the experts, were performance status, International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, PD-L1 status, zugzwang and contraindication to immunotherapy. The systemic therapies selected for first line treatment were sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib, ipilimumab/nivolumab or pembrolizumab/axitinib. CONCLUSION: A wide spectrum of treatment recommendations based on multiple decision criteria was demonstrated. Significant inter-expert variations were observed. This demonstrates how data from randomized trials are implemented differently when transferred into daily practice.

Updated efficacy results from the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial: first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated efficacy data from the second interim analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with aRCC were randomized (1 : 1) to receive avelumab (10 mg/kg) 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 PFS and overall survival (OS) among patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) tumors. Key secondary end points were OS and PFS in the overall population. RESULTS: Of 886 patients, 442 were randomized to the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 444 to the sunitinib arm; 270 and 290 had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months (data cut-off 28 January 2019), PFS was significantly longer in the avelumab plus axitinib arm than in the sunitinib arm {PD-L1+ population: hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.490-0.777]}; one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.8 (95% CI 10.1-20.7) versus 7.0 months (95% CI 5.7-9.6); overall population: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.574-0.825); one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.3 (95% CI 11.1-15.3) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 6.7-9.8)]. OS data were immature [PD-L1+ population: HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.596-1.151); one-sided P = 0.1301; overall population: HR 0.796 (95% CI 0.616-1.027); one-sided P = 0.0392]. CONCLUSION: Among patients with previously untreated aRCC, treatment with avelumab plus axitinib continued to result in a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus sunitinib; OS data were still immature. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02684006.

Deep androgen receptor suppression in prostate cancer exploits sexually dimorphic renal expression for systemic glucocorticoid exposure.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide and apalutamide are potent next-generation androgen receptor (AR) antagonists used in metastatic and non-metastatic prostate cancer. Metabolic, hormonal and immunologic effects of deep AR suppression are unknown. We hypothesized that enzalutamide and apalutamide suppress 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-2 (11ß-HSD2), which normally converts cortisol to cortisone, leading to elevated cortisol concentrations, increased ratio of active to inactive glucocorticoids and possibly suboptimal response to immunotherapy. On-treatment glucocorticoid changes might serve as an indicator of active glucocorticoid exposure and resultant adverse consequences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Human kidney tissues were stained for AR and 11ß-HSD2 expression. Patients in three trials [neoadjuvant apalutamide plus leuprolide, enzalutamide ± PROSTVAC (recombinant poxvirus prostate-specific antigen vaccine) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and enzalutamide ± PROSTVAC for non-metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer] were analyzed for cortisol and its metabolites using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Progression-free survival was determined in the metastatic CRPC study of enzalutamide ± PROSTVAC for those with glucocorticoid changes above and below the median. RESULTS: Concurrent AR and 11ß-HSD2 expression occurs only in the kidneys of men. A statistically significant rise in cortisol concentration, cortisol/cortisone ratio and tetrahydrocortisol/tetrahydrocortisone ratio with AR antagonist treatment occurred uniformly across all three trials. In the trial of enzalutamide ± PROSTVAC for metastatic CRPC, high cortisol/cortisone ratio in the enzalutamide arm was associated with significantly improved progression-free survival. However, in the enzalutamide + PROSTVAC arm, the opposite trend was observed. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide and apalutamide treatment toggles renal 11ß-HSD2 and significantly increases indicators of and exposure to biologically active glucocorticoids, which is associated with clinical outcomes.

Educational Intervention to Improve Code Status Discussion Proficiency Among Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents.

BACKGROUND: Obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) residents receive little formal training in conducting code status discussions (CSDs). OBJECTIVE: We piloted an educational intervention to improve resident confidence and competence at conducting CSDs. DESIGN: The OB/GYN residents at a single institution participated in a 3-part educational program. First, participants reviewed a journal article and completed an online module. Second, they received a didactic lecture followed by a resident-to-resident mock CSD. Finally, participants had a videotaped CSD with a standardized patient (SP). Pre- and postintervention surveys and performance evaluations were analyzed. A subgroup analysis was performed on those with completed data sets. RESULTS: Participants included 24 residents in postgraduate years (PGY) 1 to 4: 85% were female with a mean age of 29 years; 83% completed the entrance survey; 63% completed the SP CSD; and 42% completed of all parts of the intervention. Residents initially felt most prepared to discuss treatment options (3.3/5 on a Likert scale) and less prepared to discuss hospice, end-of-life care, and code status (2.2/5, 2.2/5, and 2.3/5, respectively). Performance during the resident-to-resident CSD was variable with scores (% of skills achieved) ranging from 27% to 93% (mean 64%). Performance at the SP encounter was similar with scores ranging from 40% to 73% (mean 56%). After intervention, residents felt more prepared for CSDs (3.7/5) and end-of-life care (3.9/5). The subgroup analysis failed to show a significant change in skill performance from the first to the second CSD. CONCLUSION: Participants found the components of this intervention helpful and reported improved confidence at conducting CSDs.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of cell-free circulating tumor DNA and tumor tissue in patients with advanced urothelial cancer: a pilot assessment of concordance.

BACKGROUND: Advances in cancer genome sequencing have led to the development of various next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. There is paucity of data regarding concordance of different NGS tests carried out in the same patient. METHODS: Here, we report a pilot analysis of 22 patients with metastatic urinary tract cancer and available NGS data from paired tumor tissue [FoundationOne (F1)] and cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) [Guardant360 (G360)]. RESULTS: The median time between the diagnosis of stage IV disease and the first genomic test was 23.5 days (0-767), after a median number of 0 (0-3) prior systemic lines of treatment of advanced disease. Most frequent genomic alterations (GA) were found in the genes TP53 (50.0%), TERT promoter (36.3%); ARID1 (29.5%); FGFR2/3 (20.5%), PIK3CA (20.5%) and ERBB2 (18.2%). While we identified GA in both tests, the overall concordance between the two platforms was only 16.4% (0%-50%), and 17.1% (0%-50%) for those patients (n = 6) with both tests conducted around the same time (median difference = 36 days). On the contrary, in the subgroup of patients (n = 5) with repeated NGS in ctDNA after a median of 1 systemic therapy between the two tests, average concordance was 55.5% (12.1%-100.0%). Tumor tissue mutational burden was significantly associated with number of GA in G360 report (P < 0.001), number of known GA (P = 0.009) and number of variants of unknown significance (VUS) in F1 report (P < 0.001), and with total number of GA (non-VUS and VUS) in F1 report (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a significant discordance between clinically available NGS panels in advanced urothelial cancer, even when collected around the same time. There is a need for better understanding of these two possibly complementary NGS platforms for better integration into clinical practice.

Sunitinib-induced hypertension in CYP3A4 rs4646437 A-allele carriers with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs4646437G>A in CYP3A4 was suggested to be related to sunitinib toxicity. Our objective was to perform an in-depth investigation of the association between this SNP and sunitinib toxicity and efficacy using a large cohort of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. We collected DNA and clinical information of mRCC patients treated with sunitinib. SNP rs4646437 in CYP3A4 was tested for associations with toxicity using logistic regression. Cox regression modeling was used for association analysis of rs4646437 with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In a total of 287 patients, the A-allele of CYP3A4 rs4646437 was associated with an increased risk for hypertension (odds ratio=2.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-5.2, P=0.021) and showed no significant association with PFS or OS. In conclusion, hypertension is more likely to occur in A-allele carriers of the CYP3A4 rs4646437 variant in our cohort of mRCC patients treated with sunitinib.

Second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer: experts' consensus algorithms.

BACKGROUND: Second-line systemic treatment options for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer (mccRCC) are diverse and treatment strategies are variable among experts. Our aim was to investigate the approach for the second-line treatment after first-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Recently two phase III trials have demonstrated a potential role for nivolumab (NIV) and cabozantinib (CAB) in this setting. We aimed to estimate the impact of these trials on clinical decision making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven international experts were asked to provide their treatment strategies for second-line systemic therapy for mccRCC in the current setting and once NIV and CAB will be approved and available. The treatment strategies were analyzed with the objective consensus approach. RESULTS: The analysis of the decision trees revealed everolimus (EVE), axitinib (AXI), NIV and TKI switch (sTKI) as therapeutic options after first-line TKI therapy in the current situation and mostly NIV and CAB in the future setting. The most commonly used criteria for treatment decisions were duration of response, TKI tolerance and zugzwang a composite of several related criteria. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the first-line setting, recommendations for second-line systemic treatment of mccRCC among experts were not as heterogeneous. The agents mostly used after disease progression on a first-line TKI included: EVE, AXI, NIV and sTKI. In the future setting of NIV and CAB availability, NIV was the most commonly chosen drug, whereas several experts identified situations where CAB would be preferred.

Safety and clinical activity of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors after programmed cell death 1 inhibitor treatment in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Emerging agents blocking the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) pathway show activity in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGF receptor (VEGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy after PD-1 inhibition. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mRCC treated with anti-PD-1 antibody (aPD-1) monotherapy or in combination (with VEGFR-TKI or ipilimumab) that subsequently received VEGFR-TKI were retrospectively reviewed. The efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) stratified by the type of prior PD-1 regimen. Safety by the type and PD-1 exposure was also evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included. Forty-nine patients received prior therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) alone and 21 had combination therapy of aPD-1 and VEGFR-TKI. Overall, ORR to VEGFR-TKI after PD-1 inhibition was 28% (19/68) and the median PFS was 6.4 months (mo) (4.3-9.5). ORR to VEGFR-TKI after aPD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI was lower than that in patients treated with VEGFR-TKI after CPI alone (ORR 10% versus 36%, P = 0.039). In the multivariable analysis, patients treated with prior CPI alone were more likely to achieve an objective response than those treated with aPD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI (OR = 5.38; 95% CI 1.12-26.0, P = 0.03). There was a trend toward numerically longer median PFS in the VEGFR-TKI after the CPI alone group, 8.4 mo (3.2-12.4) compared with 5.5 mo (2.9-8.3) for those who had VEGFR-TKI after aPD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI (P = 0.15). The most common adverse events (AEs) were asthenia, hypertension, and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of VEGFR-TKIs after PD-1 inhibition were demonstrated in this retrospective study. The response rate was lower and the median progression-free survival was shorter in those patients who received prior PD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI. PD-1 exposure does not seem to significantly influence the safety of subsequent VEGFR-TKI treatment.

Axitinib dose titration: analyses of exposure, blood pressure and clinical response from a randomized phase II study in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, double-blind phase II trial in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), axitinib versus placebo titration yielded a significantly higher objective response rate. We evaluated pharmacokinetic and blood pressure (BP) data from this study to elucidate relationships among axitinib exposure, BP change, and efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received axitinib 5 mg twice daily during a lead-in period. Patients who met dose-titration criteria were randomized 1:1 to stepwise dose increases with axitinib or placebo. Patients ineligible for randomization continued without dose increases. Serial 6-h and sparse pharmacokinetic sampling were carried out; BP was measured at clinic visits and at home in all patients, and by 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h throughout the course of treatment (AUCstudy) was higher in patients with complete or partial responses than those with stable or progressive disease in the axitinib-titration arm, but comparable between these groups in the placebo-titration and nonrandomized arms. In the overall population, AUCstudy and efficacy outcomes were not strongly correlated. Mean BP across the population was similar when measured in clinic, at home, or by 24-h ABPM. Weak correlations were observed between axitinib steady-state exposure and diastolic BP. When grouped by change in diastolic BP from baseline, patients in the ≥10 and ≥15 mmHg groups had longer progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal axitinib exposure may differ among patients with mRCC. Pharmacokinetic or BP measurements cannot be used exclusively to guide axitinib dosing. Individualization of treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, including axitinib, is thus more complex than anticipated and cannot be limited to a single clinical factor.

Alternate sunitinib schedules in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Sunitinib malate is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor exhibiting antiangiogenic activity. Sunitinib demonstrated improved outcomes in comparison to interferon-α in a large phase III study of treatment naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Maintaining patients on sunitinib treatment is essential for a sustained disease control as higher exposure to sunitinib has been associated with an improved overall response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Various studies have compared the outcomes of patients undergoing sunitinib therapy based on modifications from their standard dose and schedule. Several studies have shown that switching to an alternate schedule with more frequent dose interruptions without affecting dose density over a 6-week cycle is associated with improved outcomes and increased tolerability.

A phase I/II study of lenalidomide in combination with sunitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This phase I/II study was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and efficacy of lenalidomide plus sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed, metastatic RCC were treated with 10 mg/day lenalidomide plus 37.5 mg/day sunitinib, orally in 21-day cycles. Doses were escalated to determine the MTD in phase I, with additional patients planned at this dose in phase II. Primary end points were MTD and response rate. RESULTS: Sixteen patients received a median of 2, 3, and 5 cycles in cohort 1 [lenalidomide 10 mg (days 1-21) and sunitinib 37.5 mg (days 1-21)], cohort 2 [lenalidomide 10 mg (days 1-21) and sunitinib 37.5 mg (days 1-14)], and cohort 3 [lenalidomide 15 mg (days 1-21) and sunitinib 37.5 mg (days 1-14)], respectively. Median treatment durations were 41, 63, and 97 days for lenalidomide; and 41, 57, and 97.5 days for sunitinib. The MTD was found to be continuous dosing of lenalidomide 10 mg/day plus sunitinib 37.5 mg/day for 14 of 21 days. Dose-limiting toxicities included neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, asthenia, atrial fibrillation, and increased transaminases. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hematologic, including neutropenia and leukopenia. One patient achieved partial response, and seven had stable disease of which three were confirmed at subsequent tumor assessments. B cells and several T-cell subsets were modulated versus baseline. CONCLUSION: The dose schedules of lenalidomide and sunitinib evaluated in this study were not well tolerated; cumulative toxicity precluded enrollment at the MTD.

Axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: subanalyses by prior therapy from a randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: In the AXIS trial, axitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) previously treated with sunitinib or cytokines. METHODS: In post hoc analyses, patients were grouped by objective response to prior therapy (yes vs no), prior therapy duration (< vs ⩾median), and tumour burden (baseline sum of the longest diameter < vs ⩾median). PFS and overall survival (OS), and safety by type and duration of prior therapy were evaluated. RESULTS: Response to prior therapy did not influence outcome with second-line axitinib or sorafenib. PFS was significantly longer in axitinib-treated patients who received longer prior cytokine treatment and sorafenib-treated patients with smaller tumour burden following sunitinib. Overall survival with the second-line therapy was longer in patients who received longer duration of prior therapy, although not significant in the sunitinib-to-axitinib sequence subgroup; OS was also longer in patients with smaller tumour burden, but not significant in the cytokine-to-axitinib sequence subgroup. Safety profiles differed modestly by type and duration of prior therapy. CONCLUSIONS: AXIS data suggest that longer duration of the first-line therapy generally yields better outcome with the second-line therapy and that lack of response to first-line therapy does not preclude positive clinical outcomes with a second-line vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agent in patients with advanced RCC.