637 Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) may indicate a favorable prognosis in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A672-A673
Author(s):  
Dylan Martini ◽  
Sean Evans ◽  
Subir Goyal ◽  
Yuan Liu ◽  
T Anders Olsen ◽  
...  

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have become an increasingly utilized treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Although they have a favorable toxicity profile, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) can have a significant impact on patients‘ quality of life. It is not well understood whether irAEs are associated with improved clinical outcomes. We investigated the relationship between irAEs and clinical outcomes in mRCC patients treated with ICI.MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of 200 patients with mRCC who received ICI at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University from 2015–2020. Clinical outcomes were measured by overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and clinical benefit (CB). OS and PFS were calculated from ICI-initiation to date of death and radiographic or clinical progression, respectively. CB was defined as a best radiographic response of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) for >6 months per response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Toxicity data was collected from clinic notes and laboratory values. The association with OS and PFS was modeled by Cox proportional hazards model. Kaplan-Meier curves were created for survival estimates.ResultsMost patients were males (71%), and 78% had clear-cell RCC (ccRCC). Most patients (58%) received anti-PD-1 monotherapy. The majority were international mRCC database consortium (IMDC) intermediate (57%) or poor-risk (26%). Anti-PD-1 monotherapy was the most common (58%) treatment regimen and most patients received ICI as first (38%) or second-line (42%) treatment. One-third of patients (33%) experienced an irAE, with the most common being endocrine (13%), gastrointestinal (11%), and dermatologic (10%). Patients who experienced irAEs had significantly longer OS (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32–0.87, p=0.013), higher chance of CB (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.11–4.00, p=0.023) and showed a trend towards longer PFS (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.49–1.02, p=0.065) in MVA (table 1). Patients who had thyroid irAEs had significantly longer OS, PFS, and higher chance of CB in MVA (table 1). The objective response rate was higher for patients who experienced irAEs (34% vs. 18%). Patients who experienced irAEs had significantly longer median OS (44.5 vs. 18.2 months, p=0.005) and PFS (7.5 vs 3.6 months, p=0.0028) compared to patients who did not (figure 1).Abstract 637 Table 1MVA* of association between irAEs and clinical outcomesAbstract 637 Figure 1Kaplan-Meier curves of association between immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and overall survival (OS, top panel) and progression-free survival (PFS, bottom panel)ConclusionsWe showed that mRCC patients who experienced irAEs, particularly thyroid irAEs, had improved clinical outcomes. This suggests that irAEs may be prognostic of favorable outcomes in mRCC patients treated with ICI. Larger, prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.AcknowledgementsResearch reported in this publication was supported in part by the Breen Foundation and the Biostatistics Shared Resource of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University and NIH/NCI under award number P30CA138292. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.Trial RegistrationNot applicableEthics ApprovalThis retrospective study was approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board.ConsentNot applicableReferencesNot applicable

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (27) ◽  
pp. 3088-3094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Gul ◽  
Tyler F. Stewart ◽  
Charlene M. Mantia ◽  
Neil J. Shah ◽  
Emily Stern Gatof ◽  
...  

PURPOSE Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The safety and activity of the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients who have received prior ICI targeting the programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway remains unknown. We evaluated ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with metastatic RCC after prior treatment with anti–PD-1 pathway–targeted therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic RCC who received prior anti–PD-1 pathway-targeted therapy and subsequently received ipilimumab and nivolumab were reviewed. Objective response rate and progression-free survival per investigator assessment were recorded. Toxicity of ipilimumab and nivolumab was also assessed. RESULTS Forty-five patients with metastatic RCC were included. All patients (100%) received prior ICIs targeting the PD-1 pathway. The median age was 62 years (range, 21-82 years). At a median follow-up of 12 months, the objective response rate to ipilimumab and nivolumab was 20%. The median progression-free survival while on ipilimumab and nivolumab was 4 months (range, 0.8-19 months). Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade with ipilimumab and nivolumab were recorded in 29 (64%) of the 45 patients; grade 3 irAEs were recorded in 6 (13%) of the 45 patients. CONCLUSION Ipilimumab and nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with acceptable toxicity in patients with metastatic RCC who had prior treatment with checkpoint inhibition.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (14) ◽  
pp. 1660-1668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Powles ◽  
Mark R. Lackner ◽  
Stéphane Oudard ◽  
Bernard Escudier ◽  
Christy Ralph ◽  
...  

Purpose To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare dual inhibition of PI3K/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) by apitolisib (GDC-0980) against single inhibition of mTORC1 by everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients and Methods Patients with clear-cell mRCC who progressed on or after vascular endothelial growth factor–targeted therapy were randomly assigned to apitolisib 40 mg once per day or to everolimus 10 mg once per day. End points included progression-free survival, safety, overall survival, and objective response rate. Biomarker assessments were conducted. Results Eighty-five patients were randomly assigned. After 67 events, stratified analysis revealed that median progression-free survival was significantly shorter for apitolisib than for everolimus (3.7 v 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.23 to 3.63; P < .01]); apitolisib was not favored in any stratification subgroup. Median overall survival was not significantly different but trended in favor of everolimus (16.5 v 22.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 0.97 to 3.24; P = .06]). The objective response rate was 7.1% for apitolisib and 11.6% for everolimus. Patients administered apitolisib with a greater incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more likely to discontinue treatment (31% v 12% for everolimus). No drug-related deaths were observed. Apitolisib in comparison with everolimus was associated with substantially more high-grade hyperglycemia (40% v 9%) and rash (24% v 2%). Apitolisib pharmacokinetics suggested a relationship between exposure, and rash and hyperglycemia. Retrospective biomarker analyses revealed a relationship between VHL mutation status and outcome with everolimus but not with apitolisib. High hypoxia-inducible factor 1α protein expression was associated with better outcome in both arms. Conclusion This study demonstrated that dual PI3K/mTOR inhibition by apitolisib was less effective than was everolimus in mRCC, likely because full blockade of PI3K/mTOR signaling resulted in multiple on-target adverse events. VHL mutation and hypoxia-inducible factor 1α expression may be predictive of an mTOR inhibitor benefit, although prospective validation is required.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4267-4267
Author(s):  
Pongtep Viboonjuntra ◽  
Arnuparp Lekhakula ◽  
Kanchana Chansung ◽  
Chittima Sirijerachai ◽  
Pimjai Niparuck ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction : To date, the ELN recommendation and NCCN guidelines are the principle mile stones to follow up the treatment response and to make the decision of TKIs switching. However, in real life practice, many factors influence changing the real switching date from the date had an indication. This study aims to analyze the impact of early switching to second line TKI, nilotinib, in real life practice, for the CML patients who failed, had sub-optimal response or were intolerant to imatinib. Methods : This prospective study was conducted through 7 medical centers in Thailand between 1st of September 2009 and 31st of August 2011. Adult CML patients of age ≥ 18 years old, in chronic and accelerated phase, who had failure, suboptimal response or intolerance to imatinib, based on ELN 2009 guideline, were included and were eligible with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. Prospective data collection for 24 months of each patient was performed. The main objective was to identify the impact of early switching to nilotinib on major molecular response (MMR). The other objectives were to observe the efficacy of nilotinib including overall survival, progression free survival and the safety. The survival results were presented as Kaplan-Meier survival curves. For the comparison of the treatment groups, the Kaplan-Meier estimator with the corresponding log-rank test for equality of survivor functions across treatment group was applied. Results : The final 108 cases were analysed. The median age was 47 (17-79) years with the proportion of male to female of 1.4:1 respectively. The median duration of the prior imatinib treatment was 18 months (2-142 months). The median duration between the date of indication and the date of real switching was 3.1 months (0-62.8 months) with 50% changing less than 3 months, 26.9% between 3 months and 12 months, and 23.1% changing longer than 12 months. The indication of switching included 63.6% failure to imatinib, 29% intolerance to imatinib and 7.4% suboptimal to imatinib. On the nilotinib switching, 70.4% completed 24 months follow-up, and 29.6% discontinued treatment mostly because of unsatisfactory results or adverse events. Evaluation was made every 3 months based on 2009 ELN recommendation. At 3 months, 57%, 20%, and 8% of the patients achieved CHR, CCyR and MMR, respectively. Those who did not achieve CHR at 3 months never achieved MMR, while 86 % of those who achieved CCyR at 3 months achieved MMR. All CML achieving MMR at 3 months had sustained MMR throughout the study period (24 months). Imatinib suboptimal response had better outcome than imatinib failure and imatinib intolerance groups. A preliminary analysis of BCR-ABL mutation was performed on 90 cases, and mutations were found on 21 cases. Two of them were T315I which were excluded from the study. The cases with mutation had poorer response to treatment than those without mutation. There was one case with initial G250E mutation developing T315I mutation after treatment with nilotinib. At 24 months, one case progressed to accelerated phase and 3 cases progressed to blastic transformation. The 2-year overall survival and 2-year progression-free survival and were 98.9% and 96.9% (figure 1 and 2), respectively. The interquatile analysis was done to identify the groups of cumulative MMR according to the duration between the date of indication and the date of real switching to nilotinib. The patients who switched to nilotinib within 12 months after date of indication could have a greater chance to achieved MMR than those who switched treatment later than 12 months (p(log-rank) = 0.002) (figure 3). Skin rash, musculoskeletal pain, and infection were the three most common non-hematologic adverse events, However, most of them were grade 1-2, except for 4 cases with grade 3-4 infections. Grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events included thrombocytopenia (12%), neutropenia (11%), anemia (5%) and leucopenia (4%), and most of them were manageable. Although biochemical abnormalities were commonly found, most of them were mild. Conclusions : Nilotinib, as a second line treatment showed excellent efficacy and tolerability. Indication for nilotinib treatment, initial mutation status and depth of response at 3 months after treatment can predict outcomes of the patients. However, the patients will have a greater chance to achieve MMR if they switched to nilotinib within 12 months after the date of indication for changing. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15531-e15531
Author(s):  
Fumiya Hongo ◽  
Masakatsu Oishi ◽  
Takashi Ueda ◽  
Yasunori Kimura ◽  
Terukazu Nakamura ◽  
...  

e15531 Background: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is one of the adverse events during treatment with everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Japanese study of everolimus treatment-associated ILD as a prognostic factor is rare. Methods: We retrospectively assessed the incidence and outcome of ILD in mRCC patients treated with everolimus. Between April 2010 and August 2012, 25 cases were treated with everolimus after the failure of one or two TKIs in our institute. All adverse events were graded in accordance with NCI CTCAE, version 3.0. Results: A total of 25 patients received treatment with everolimus and included 18 male and 7 female patients ranging in age from 21 to 84 years (median 62). According to MSKCC risk criteria, 6 cases were at favorable risk, 16 cases were at intermediate risk, and 3 cases were at poor risk. The median treatment term was 4 months (range 2-17 months). SD was reported in 19 cases and PD in 6 cases. Progression free survival was 3.5 months and overall survival was 12 months. ILD was found in 7 cases (28%). One was G1, five were G2, and one was G3. Corticosteroid therapy was initiated in 3 cases. In 5 of 7 ILD cases, everolimus was re-challenged. In our series, patients with ILD showed significantly better progression free survival than those without ILD (PFS was 8 months vs 3 months. Log-rank, P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall survival (12 months in patients with ILD vs 10 months in patients without ILD. Log-rank, NS). Conclusions: Everolimus appears to have been effective and well-tolerated in our institute. Re-challenge with everolimus was feasible after improving everolimus-induced ILD in cases of grade 1-2. To confirm these findings, the efficacy and AE profile of everolimus in Japanese patients should be investigated.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21202-e21202
Author(s):  
John P. Palmer ◽  
Yenong Cao ◽  
Samer Ibrahim ◽  
Natasha Dhawan ◽  
Muhammad Zubair Afzal ◽  
...  

e21202 Background: Increased systemic inflammatory state and increased inflammation within tumor micro-environment (TME) have been associated with a worse prognosis and lower responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Systemic inflammatory immune index (SII) reflects the changes in the systemic inflammatory matrix. Studies have shown the association of SII with cancer survival and treatment outcomes. We aim to study the effect of SII on treatment outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients being treated with ICI. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis on 178 NSCLC patients treated with ICIs (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab/nivolumab or atezolizumab) alone or in combination with chemotherapy. SII is the product of platelets multiplied by neutrophils divided by lymphocytes. Baseline and 8-week SIIs were obtained. Radiographic response, duration of radiographic response (date of best response to radiographic progression), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated. A high SII was defined as a value greater than the median SII. Cox regression univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Logistic regression, t-test, and Chi-square tests were applied. Results: Overall, 81% patients had adenocarcinoma and 19% patients had squamous, adenosquamous or large cell carcinoma. The majority of the patients were female (56.2% vs. 43.8%). Median SII at baseline was 1335. The objective response rate (ORR) was 45.1%. The disease control rate was 75.8%. The ORR was 51% in patients receiving ICI first-line compared to 35% in those who received ICI as a second-line therapy. At baseline, there was no difference in the mean SII between responders and non-responders (2146.2 vs. 1917.5, P = 0.5); however at 8 weeks, the mean SII was significantly lower in responders compared to non-responders (1198.8 vs. 2880.2, P = 0.02). A total of 15 (10.9%) patients were found to have pseudoprogression or mixed response on follow-up imaging. Among these, 11(73.3%) patients had low SII at 8 weeks (P = 0.04). The median OS was significantly higher in patients with low SII at baseline (29.6 months vs. 10.1 months, P = 0.001 95% CI 10.6 – 22.1). Similarly, there was a significant difference in median PFS in patients with low SII (14.6 months vs. 6.7 months, P = 0.002, 95% CI 5.6 – 11.6). There was no correlation between high or low SII on the incidence of immune-related adverse events. Conclusions: SII may have significant impact on OS and PFS and could be serially monitored to assess the response to ICI. A low SII may help to differentiate pseudoprogression vs. true progression. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings. Further, it will be interesting to see if SII could be incorporated into predictive models to determine the duration of cytotoxic therapy in selected patients.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. FSO581
Author(s):  
Hussein A Assi ◽  
Adam S Asch ◽  
Michael Machiorlatti ◽  
Sara K Vesely ◽  
Sami Ibrahimi

Background: Immune-related adverse events are associated with efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We hypothesize that immune-mediated thrombocytopenia could be a biomarker for response to ICIs. Materials & methods: This retrospective study included 215 patients with metastatic malignancies treated with ICIs. Patients were stratified by nadir platelet count. Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival and overall survival. Results: On multivariate analysis, grade 1 thrombocytopenia was positively associated with overall survival compared with patients who did not develop thrombocytopenia (hazard ratio [HR]= 0.28 [95% CI: 0.13–0.60]; p = 0.001), while grade 2–4 thrombocytopenia was not (HR= 0.36 [95% CI: 0.13–1.04]; p = 0.060). There was no association between degree of thrombocytopenia and progression-free survival. Conclusion: Follow-up studies are warranted to substantiate the predictive significance of thrombocytopenia in patients receiving ICIs.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 614-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Bernard Escudier ◽  
Danielle Murphy ◽  
Panpan Wang ◽  
Jamal Christo Tarazi ◽  
...  

614 Background: Axitinib (axi) is approved for 2nd-line treatment of aRCC. In AXIS trial, median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer in axi- vs sorafenib (sor)-treated pts (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.54–0.81, P<0.0001). Association between mRNA/miRNA expression and clinical outcomes in a subset of axi- or sor-treated pts from AXIS was assessed. Methods: mRNA/miRNA analyses were performed on archival tumor samples. Expression was summarized for responders (complete and partial response) vs non-responders (stable and progressive disease), and for maximum percent tumor change. PFS and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier. Results: Pt characteristics were similar between axi (n=34) and sor (n=33) arms. Association with outcomes is shown in the Table. A correlation was observed for CD68 protein and mRNA expression in axi-treated pts (R=0.4774 P=0.0043 and R=0.3985 P=0.0196, respectively). Both CXCR4 and TLR3 showed differences between treatment arms and association with PFS. TNFSF10 <median, and CD163, CSF1R and miR-221-5p ≥median were associated with shorter OS with axi vs sor ( P<0.05). Clinical trial information: NCT00678392. Conclusions: Immune-related biomarkers were associated with clinical outcomes in axi/sor-treated aRCC pts. Lower CCR7 expression was associated with better response and OS in axi-treated pts. CXCR4 and TLR3 may be predictive of response to axi. Analysis in a larger cohort is warranted.[Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document