scholarly journals Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial

ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. e001079 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Albiges ◽  
Nizar M Tannir ◽  
Mauricio Burotto ◽  
David McDermott ◽  
Elizabeth R Plimack ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
First Line

PurposeTo report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).MethodsPatients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory).ResultsOverall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN.ConclusionAfter long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety.Trial registration detailsClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) treated with first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib: The CheckMate 9ER trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 285-285
Author(s):  
David Cella ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Steven I. Blum ◽  
Flavia Ejzykowicz ◽  
Melissa Hamilton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Patient Reported

285 Background: In the phase III, open-label CheckMate 9ER trial (NCT03141177), patients with aRCC were randomized 1:1 (stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk score, tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, geographic region) to nivolumab 240 mg IV Q2W + cabozantinib 40 mg PO QD (N+C; n = 323) or sunitinib (S) 50 mg PO (4 weeks of 6-week cycles; n = 328) for first-line treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (max N treatment, 2 years). N+C met primary and secondary efficacy endpoints by significantly improving progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate versus S in aRCC patients with a clear cell component. Here, we present in-depth health-related quality of life (HRQoL) patient-reported outcome (PRO) results, including overall between-group comparisons of treatment groups and time to confirmed deterioration (TCD). Methods: PROs in all randomized patients were an exploratory endpoint assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19) and EQ-5D-3L instruments. PRO assessments at baseline, common on-treatment scheduled visits, and common follow-up visits for both arms were analyzed. Changes from baseline were assessed using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), adjusting for baseline scores and stratification factors. TCD was calculated from Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Median follow-up for overall survival was 18.1 months. PRO completion rates were > 90% at baseline, and ≥ 80% at all on-treatment assessments (≥ 10 patients) through week 91 in both arms. The overall least squares mean difference in change from baseline favored N+C over S in FKSI-19 (all domains) and in EQ-5D-3L. Patients treated with N+C experienced less treatment burden, with decreased risk of confirmed deterioration across most measurements versus S, including FKSI-19 total, disease-related symptoms (DRS), DRS-physical (DRS-P), DRS-emotional (DRS-E), functional well-being (FWB), and EQ-5D-3L visual analog scale (VAS) scores (Table). Conclusions: Patients reported statistically significant HRQoL benefits with N+C versus S. Treatment with N+C significantly reduced the risk of deterioration in HRQoL scores, including in disease-related symptoms of kidney cancer. These results suggest that the superior efficacy of N+C over S comes with the additional benefit of improved HRQoL. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177 . [Table: see text]

Long-term safety of sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: Follow-up of patients from phase III TARGET

2010 ◽  
Vol 46 (13) ◽  
pp. 2432-2440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Joaquim Bellmunt ◽  
Camillo Porta ◽  
Cezary Szczylik ◽  
Michael Staehler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

scholarly journals Quality of Life Outcomes for Cabozantinib Versus Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: METEOR Phase III Randomized Trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 757-764 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cella ◽  
Bernard Escudier ◽  
Nizar M. Tannir ◽  
Thomas Powles ◽  
Frede Donskov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Bone Metastases ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose In the phase III METEOR trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01865747), 658 previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. The cabozantinib arm had improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate compared with everolimus. Changes in quality of life (QoL), an exploratory end point, are reported here. Patients and Methods Patients completed the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) and the five-level EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at baseline and throughout the study. The nine-item FKSI–Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), a subset of FKSI-19, was also investigated. Data were summarized descriptively and by repeated-measures analysis (for which a clinically relevant difference was an effect size ≥ 0.3). Time to deterioration (TTD) was defined as the earlier of date of death, radiographic progressive disease, or ≥ 4-point decrease from baseline in FKSI-DRS. Results The QoL questionnaire completion rates remained ≥ 75% through week 48 in each arm. There was no difference over time for FKSI-19 Total, FKSI-DRS, or EQ-5D data between the cabozantinib and everolimus arms. Among the individual FKSI-19 items, cabozantinib was associated with worse diarrhea and nausea; everolimus was associated with worse shortness of breath. These differences are consistent with the adverse event profile of each drug. Cabozantinib improved TTD overall, with a marked improvement in patients with bone metastases at baseline. Conclusion In patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, relative to everolimus, cabozantinib generally maintained QoL to a similar extent. Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib extended TTD overall and markedly improved TTD in patients with bone metastases.

scholarly journals Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long‐term follow‐up of the randomized, open‐label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial

Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 126 (18) ◽  
pp. 4156-4167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Bernard Escudier ◽  
Saby George ◽  
Hans J. Hammers ◽  
Sandhya Srinivas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Axitinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Long-term efficacy and safety from a phase Ib study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5080-5080
Author(s):  
Michael B. Atkins ◽  
Igor Puzanov ◽  
Elizabeth R. Plimack ◽  
Mayer N. Fishman ◽  
David F. McDermott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Term Efficacy

5080 Background: Axitinib (AXI) plus pembrolizumab (pembro) showed superior overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate compared with sunitinib in a randomized Phase 3 trial in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Here, we report long-term efficacy and safety data of the combination AXI/pembro from the Phase 1 trial, with almost 5 years of follow-up. Methods: 52 treatment-naïve patients with advanced RCC were enrolled between 23 September 2014 and 13 October 2015, and were treated with oral AXI 5 mg twice daily and intravenous pembro 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Planned treatment duration was 2 years for pembro and not limited for AXI. Based on International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria, 46.2%, 44.2% and 5.8% of patients were reported as having favourable, intermediate and poor risk. Results: At data cut-off date (July 3, 2019), median OS was not reached; 38 (73.1%) patients were alive. 14 (26.9%) patients had died, none were related to treatment. The probability of being alive was 96.1% (95% CI 85.2–99.0) at 1 year, 88.2% (95% CI 75.7– 94.5) at 2 years, 82.2 % (95% CI 68.5– 90.3) at 3 years, and 66.8 % (95% CI 49.1–79.5) at 4 years. Median PFS was 23.5 (95% CI 15.4–30.4) months. Median duration of response was 22.1 (95% CI 15.1–not evaluable) months. Median time on treatment with the combination AXI/pembro was 14.5 months (n=52), median time on pembro after AXI discontinuation was 9.0 months (n=10), and median time on AXI after pembro discontinuation was 7.5 months (n=11). After stopping study treatment, 22 patients received subsequent systemic therapy, including nivolumab and cabozantinib (n=6 each). Grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 38 (73.1%) patients. 20 (38.5%) patients discontinued either drug due to AEs: 17 (32.7%) patients discontinued AXI, and 13 (25.0%) patients discontinued pembro with 10 (19.2%) discontinuing both drugs. Dose reduction of AXI due to AEs was reported in 16 (30.8%) patients. The most common AEs reported were diarrhea (84.6%), fatigue (80.8%), hypertension (53.8%), cough (48.1%), and dysphonia (48.1%). Increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase occurred in 44.2% and 36.5% of patients, respectively. With this longer follow-up, there were no cumulative AEs or new AEs. OS by IMDC risk group will be presented. Conclusions: In patients with advanced RCC with almost 5 years of follow-up, the combination of AXI/pembro continues to demonstrate clinical benefit with no new safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT02133742 .

A phase 2 single-arm study of cabozantinib in patients with advanced or unresectable renal cell carcinoma pretreated with one immune checkpoint inhibitor: The BREAKPOINT trial (MeetUro trial 03-NCT03463681).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4569-4569
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Procopio ◽  
Melanie Claps ◽  
Chiara Pircher ◽  
Luca Porcu ◽  
Pierangela Sepe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Oral Mucositis ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Immune Escape ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
First Line

4569 Background: For many years, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy (tp) has been a milestone for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Recently, first line tp based on anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus tyrosine-kinase-inhibitors (IO-TKI) and anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 combos (IO-IO) significantly improved survival of mRCC patients (pts). Prospective data are lacking to determine the efficacy of anti-VEGF tp after IO-IO or IO-TKI. Cabozantinib (Cabo) showed to prolong survival in mRCC pts pre-treated with TKIs and to target kinases involved in immune-escape. So, it may represent an ideal agent to be used sequentially after ICIs. Methods: This is an open label, single arm, multicenter, phase II study evaluating efficacy and safety of Cabo in mRCC pts who received an anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based adjuvant (adj) or first line tp. Cabo 60 mg/daily was administered until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) by Brookmeyer-Crowley test, secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety. Exploratory endopoints were to investigate tissue PD-L1 expression, to assess the modulating activity of Cabo on local and systemic tumor immunity and to explore bone formation and reabsorption markers. Results: From July 2018, 49 pts were enrolled and 48 were included in the analysis. Median age was 62.5 years (range: 30-78), 63% of pts were male. At baseline, 26% of pts had a good Heng risk score, 47% intermediate and 28% a poor risk, while in 2% of pts the class of risk was undetermined. 74% of pts received an IO-IO combo as first line tp, 17% IO-TKI, 9% pts an adj IO monotherapy. Pts received a median of 10 cycles of Cabo (range 5-17 cycles). 25 pts (53%) are still on tp, 1 patient discontinued Cabo for AEs, 13 pts for radiological PD, 6 pts discontinued for clinical PD or death, while 2 pts for reasons other than AEs or PD. Among evaluable cases, 17 pts (43%) achieved a partial response and 15 pts (37%) stable disease. Complete responses were not observed. At a median (m) follow-up of 8.0 months (mo) (4.4-13.5 mo), 71% of pts were alive and mPFS was 9.3 mo (95% CI 7.1-29.0 mo). Grade (G) 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 34% of pts, including more frequently serum bilirubin increase, hypertension, calcium and sodium serum levels alterations and oral mucositis. G1-2 were observed in 61% of pts, including in most of cases diarrhoea, nausea, oral mucositis, disgeusia, hand-foot syndrome, fatigue and hypothyroidism. Due to AEs, transitory withholding of Cabo was observed in 53.5% of pts and for 23 pts (48%) dose reductions were needed. Conclusions: So far, Cabo tp after IO-IO or IO-TKI showed promising results and was well tolerated. Longer follow-up is needed for final OS and exploratory endpoints results. Clinical trial information: NCT03463681.

scholarly journals Randomized Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Pazopanib Versus Placebo After Nephrectomy in Patients With Localized or Locally Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (35) ◽  
pp. 3916-3923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Naomi B. Haas ◽  
Frede Donskov ◽  
Marine Gross-Goupil ◽  
Sergei Varlamov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Starting Dose

Purpose This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy. Patients and Methods A total of 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade) or ≥ pT3, including N1, clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib or placebo for 1 year; 403 patients received a starting dose of 800 mg or placebo. To address toxicity attrition, the 800-mg starting dose was lowered to 600 mg, and the primary end point analysis was changed to disease-free survival (DFS) for pazopanib 600 mg versus placebo (n = 1,135). Primary analysis was performed after 350 DFS events in the intent-to-treat (ITT) pazopanib 600 mg group (ITT600mg), and DFS follow-up analysis was performed 12 months later. Secondary end point analyses included DFS with ITT pazopanib 800 mg (ITT800mg) and safety. Results The primary analysis results of DFS ITT600mg favored pazopanib but did not show a significant improvement over placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = .165). The secondary analysis of DFS in ITT800mg (n = 403) yielded an HR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.94). Follow-up analysis in ITT600mg yielded an HR of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14). Increased ALT and AST were common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the pazopanib 600 mg (ALT, 16%; AST, 5%) and 800 mg (ALT, 18%; AST, 7%) groups. Conclusion The results of the primary DFS analysis of pazopanib 600 mg showed no benefit over placebo in the adjuvant setting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document