Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib in the East Asian subset of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the CLEAR trial.

In the CLEAR trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab met study endpoints of superiority vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We report the efficacy and safety results of the East Asian subset (ie, patients in Japan and the Republic of Korea) from the CLEAR trial. Of 1069 patients randomly assigned to receive either lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, lenvatinib plus everolimus or sunitinib, 213 (20.0%) were from East Asia. Baseline characteristics of patients in the East Asian subset were generally comparable with those of the global trial population. In the East Asian subset, progression-free survival was considerably longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib (median 22.1 vs 11.1 months; HR 0.38; 95% CI: 0.23-0.62). The HR for overall survival comparing lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib was 0.71; 95% CI: 0.30-1.71. The objective response rate was higher with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib (65.3% vs 49.2%; odds ratio 2.14; 95% CI: 1.07-4.28). Dose reductions due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) commonly associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors occurred more frequently than in the global population. Hand-foot syndrome was the most frequent any-grade TEAE with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (66.7%) and sunitinib (57.8%), a higher incidence compared to the global population (28.7% and 37.4%, respectively). The most common grade 3 to 5 TEAEs were hypertension with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (20%) and decreased platelet count with sunitinib (21.9%). Efficacy and safety for patients in the East Asian subset were generally similar to those of the global population, except as noted.

Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

RECORD-4 multicenter phase 2 trial of second-line everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Asian versus non-Asian population subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: RECORD-4 assessed everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who progressed after 1 prior anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or cytokine and reinforced the clinical benefit of second-line everolimus. Because of the high percentage of patients from China enrolled in RECORD-4 (41%) and some reported differences in responses to certain targeted agents between Chinese and Western patients, this subanalysis evaluated outcomes in Asian versus non-Asian patients. METHODS: RECORD-4 enrolled patients with clear cell mRCC into 3 cohorts based on prior first-line therapy: sunitinib, other anti-VEGF (sorafenib, bevacizumab, pazopanib, other), or cytokines. Patients received everolimus 10 mg/d until progression of disease (RECIST, v1.0) or intolerance. Primary end point was progression-free survival per investigator review. Data cutoff was Sept 1, 2014. RESULTS: Among Asian (n = 55) versus non-Asian (n = 79) patients, 98% versus 84% had good/intermediate MSKCC prognosis; 73% versus 65% were men, and 85% versus 73% were < 65 years of age. All (100%) Asian patients were of Chinese ethnicity. Median duration of exposure was 5.5 mo for Asian and 6.0 mo for non-Asian patients. Among Asian versus non-Asian patients, median progression-free survival (months) was 7.4 versus 7.8 overall, 7.4 versus 4.0 with prior sunitinib, and 5.7 versus 9.2 with prior other anti-VEGFs. Clinical benefit rate was similar between populations: 74.5% (95% CI 61.0-85.3) for Asian patients and 74.7% (95% CI 63.6-83.8) for non-Asian patients. Most patients achieved stable disease as best overall response (Asian, 63.6%; non-Asian, 69.6%). Overall rate of grade 3/4 adverse events appeared similar for Asian (58%) and non-Asian patients (54%). CONCLUSIONS: This RECORD-4 subanalysis demonstrated comparable efficacy and adverse event profiles of second-line everolimus in Asian and non-Asian patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes by prior therapy should be interpreted with caution because of small patient numbers in some subpopulations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Everolimus as Second-line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell. Carcinoma (RECORD-4); ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01491672 . Registration date: December 14, 2011.

Buparlisib and paclitaxel in patients with platinum-pretreated recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (BERIL-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck contributes to treatment resistance and disease progression. Buparlisib, a pan-PI3K inhibitor, has shown preclinical antitumour activity and objective responses in patients with epithelial malignancies. We assessed whether the addition of buparlisib to paclitaxel improves clinical outcomes compared with paclitaxel and placebo in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study (BERIL-1), we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck after disease progression on or after one previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimen in the metastatic setting. Eligible patients were enrolled from 58 centres across 18 countries and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive second-line oral buparlisib (100 mg once daily) or placebo, plus intravenous paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) in 28 day treatment cycles. Randomisation was done via a central patient screening and randomisation system with an interactive (voice and web) response system and stratification by number of previous lines of therapy in the recurrent and metastatic setting and study site. Patients and investigators (including local radiologists) were masked to treatment assignment from randomisation until the final overall survival analysis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by local investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.1) in all randomly assigned patients. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline safety assessment according to the treatment they received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01852292, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 5, 2013, and May 5, 2015, 158 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either buparlisib plus paclitaxel (n=79) or placebo plus paclitaxel (n=79). Median progression-free survival was 4·6 months (95% CI 3·5-5·3) in the buparlisib group and 3·5 months (2·2-3·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·65 [95% CI 0·45-0·95], nominal one-sided p=0·011). Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 62 (82%) of 76 patients in the buparlisib group and 56 (72%) of 78 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (occurring in ≥10% of patients in the buparlisib group vs the placebo group) were hyperglycaemia (17 [22%] of 76 vs two [3%] of 78), anaemia (14 [18%] vs nine [12%]), neutropenia (13 [17%] vs four [5%]), and fatigue (six [8%] vs eight [10%]). Serious adverse events (regardless of relation to study treatment) were reported for 43 (57%) of 76 patients in the buparlisib group and 37 (47%) of 78 in the placebo group. On-treatment deaths occurred in 15 (20%) of 76 patients in the buparlisib group and 17 (22%) of 78 patients in the placebo group; most were caused by disease progression and none were judged to be related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: On the basis of the improved clinical efficacy with a manageable safety profile, the results of this randomised phase 2 study suggest that buparlisib in combination with paclitaxel could be an effective second-line treatment for patients with platinum-pretreated recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Further phase 3 studies are warranted to confirm this phase 2 finding. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Safety and efficacy of NEPA, an oral fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, in older patients.

OBJECTIVES: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients with cancer. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of netupitant 300mg, a new NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron 0.5mg, a pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3 RA. This retrospective analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of NEPA in older patients. METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 and ≥70years from one phase II and two phase III trials were considered. Chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant tumors were treated with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC), non-AC-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (non-AC MEC), or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Following single-dose NEPA, patients received oral dexamethasone on day 1 (AC and non-AC MEC) or days 1-4 (HEC). Efficacy was evaluated through complete response (CR) in cycle 1. Safety was evaluated by AEs and ECGs. Data were summarized by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 214 patients were ≥65years and 80 were ≥70years. A higher CR was observed in older patients versus the total population; in the acute phase >90% of patients ≥65years experienced CR. Efficacy was maintained over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. No significant nausea rates were generally higher in the older patients versus total population. Similar rates of AEs in the first treatment cycle were reported for patients ≥65years, ≥70years, and total population (72.9% vs 67.5% vs 70.0%, respectively). No cardiac safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: NEPA is highly effective in older patients receiving MEC or HEC regimens. NEPA is also well tolerated, demonstrating suitability for use in older patients who may have comorbidities.

Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1), -2, and -3. This phase III trial compared tivozanib with sorafenib as initial targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic RCC, with a clear cell component, prior nephrectomy, measurable disease, and 0 or 1 prior therapies for metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to tivozanib or sorafenib. Prior VEGF-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were not permitted. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review. RESULTS: A total of 517 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib (n = 260) or sorafenib (n = 257). PFS was longer with tivozanib than with sorafenib in the overall population (median, 11.9 v 9.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.797; 95% CI, 0.639 to 0.993; P = .042). One hundred fifty-six patients (61%) who progressed on sorafenib crossed over to receive tivozanib. The final overall survival (OS) analysis showed a trend toward longer survival on the sorafenib arm than on the tivozanib arm (median, 29.3 v 28.8 months; HR, 1.245; 95% CI, 0.954 to 1.624; P = .105). Adverse events (AEs) more common with tivozanib than with sorafenib were hypertension (44% v 34%) and dysphonia (21% v 5%). AEs more common with sorafenib than with tivozanib were hand-foot skin reaction (54% v 14%) and diarrhea (33% v 23%). CONCLUSION: Tivozanib demonstrated improved PFS, but not OS, and a differentiated safety profile, compared with sorafenib, as initial targeted therapy for metastatic RCC.

Randomized phase II trial of letrozole plus anti-MUC1 antibody AS1402 in hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: AS1402 is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 antibody that targets the aberrantly glycosylated antigen MUC1, which is overexpressed in 90% of breast tumors and contributes to estrogen-mediated growth and survival of breast cancer cells in vitro by modulating estrogen receptor (ER) activity. Aromatase inhibitors have been reported to enhance antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity elicited by antibodies in vitro. We compared the outcomes of patients with breast cancer treated with letrozole with or without AS1402. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The study population included 110 patients with locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer randomized to receive 2.5 mg letrozole only once daily or with a weekly 9 mg/kg AS1402 infusion. The primary endpoint was overall response rate. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, time to progression, and safety. AS1402 exposure and influence of allotypes of FcγRIIIa, FcγRIIa, and MUC1 were evaluated. RESULTS: The study was stopped early because of a trend toward worse response rates and a higher rate of early disease progression in the AS1402 + letrozole arm. Final analysis revealed no significant difference in efficacy between the study arms. Evaluated gene polymorphisms did not define patient subgroups with improved outcomes. Addition of AS1402 to letrozole was associated with manageable toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Because adding AS1402 to letrozole did not improve outcomes compared with letrozole only, blocking ER may be a better strategy for harnessing MUC1 modulation of the ER to a clinical advantage. FcγRIIIa, FcγRIIa, and MUC1 allotype did not predict outcome for patients treated with letrozole with or without AS1402.