Changes of pulmonary function test and development of non-infectious pneumonitis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with everolimus.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 530-530
Author(s):  
Kwon-Oh Park ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
Jin-Hee Ahn ◽  
In Gab Jeong ◽  
Cheryn Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Pulmonary Function ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Pulmonary Function Test ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Alveolar Volume ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Function Test

530 Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes of pulmonary function test (PFT) during everolimus treatment and to assess whether the change of PFT is associated with the development of non-infectious pneumonitis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In addition, we tried to determine whether everolimus-associated pneumonitis could affect the efficacy of everolimus. Methods: Patients with mRCC who had received everolimus (10 mg dose once daily) after failure to VEGF-TKI treatment and underwent baseline PFT with regular PFT follow up were included in this study. The diffusing capacity divided by the alveolar volume (DLCO/VA) was used among various parameters of PFT. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to describe changes of DLCO/VA. A Cox proportional hazard model with pneumonitis onset as a time-dependent covariate used to assess the prognostic role of pneumonitis. Results: This study included 36 patients. Nine patients (30%) developed everolimus-associated pneumonitis (pneumonitis group) and 27 were included in non-pneumonitis group. Five patients (14%) among pnemonitis group were symptomatic. The baseline DLCO/VA of patients was 90.0%. It decreased to 80.2%, 76.4%, 76.0%, and 72.1% after everolimus treatment of 6, 12, 18, and 24 weeks, respectively. DLCO/VA declined significantly as the treatment duration becomes longer (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in change of DLCO/VA between patients with pneumonitis and those without pneumonitis (p =0.435). On time-variant Cox analysis, the decrease of DLCO/VA was not correlated with the efficacy of everolimus in terms of progression free survival (PFS, HR=1.0, p=0.94) and overall survival (OS, HR=0.98, p=0.18), while development of pneumonitis was associated with poor PFS (HR=4.60, p=0.005). Conclusions: Although the eveolimus treatment decreased DLCO/VA, the decline of DLCO/VA was not associated with the development of pneumonitis. Changes in DLCO/VA were not related with efficacy of everolimus, while the development of pneumonitis was a prognostic factor for PFS.

Comparison of First-line Pazopanib and Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Experiences of the Urologic Cancer Centre for Research and Innovation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily C.L. Wong ◽  
Camilla Tajzler ◽  
Gaurav Vasisth ◽  
Amanda Zhu ◽  
Mathilda Chow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Sunitinib and pazopanib are orally-administered tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitors (TKIs) approved as first-line therapy for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The IMDC criteria are a predictive prognostic model for patients with mRCC when stratified into three prognosis groups: favourable, intermediate and poor. We retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line therapy for patients with mRCC in our single institution database. Methods: Retrospective analysis was done to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and side effects of sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line therapy in patients with mRCC. Patients were stratified into prognosis groups according to IMDC criteria. Disease assessment was performed on measurable aspects of disease based on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging reports. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression, with disease progression as the endpoint.Results: Data was obtained from 228 patients with mRCC who were treated with either pazopanib (n=57) or sunitinib (n=171). No significant difference in PFS was found between sunitinib and pazopanib (HR for disease progression or all-cause death, 1.10; 95%CI: 0.76-1.57, p=0.62). Median PFS time for patients receiving sunitinib was 9.4 months and for pazopanib, 8.5 months. Median PFS for patients with intermediate-risk disease was similar between groups (9.4 months vs. 9.2 months, respectively, p=0.93). However, patients treated with sunitinib experienced a greater number of side effects compared to pazopanib. Conclusions: Sunitinib and pazopanib are similarly efficacious as first-line therapy for mRCC. However, adverse events are lower with pazopanib.

A prospective, open label, multicenter, randomized phase II trial: Sequential therapy with bevacizumab, RAd001 (everolimus) and axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) (BERAT study).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16097-e16097
Author(s):  
Viktor Grünwald ◽  
Lothar Bergmann ◽  
Peter J. Goebell ◽  
Arne Strauss ◽  
Johannes Meiler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference

e16097 Background: Inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), its receptor (Ri) or mammalian target of rapamycin (mTORi) are components of systemic treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and are applied in sequence. We compared the efficacy of VEGFRi and mTORi in 2nd line after failure of bevacizumab/interferon in a phase II trial. Methods: Key inclusion criteria were: measurable mRCC (all histologies), ECOG 0-1, IMDC risk: good or intermediate, adequate organ function. Tumor status was assessed in week 11 and q12 wks., thereafter. Measures of Health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) utilized FKSI-10 and was assessed in week 4, 10 and q12 wks., thereafter. 1st line consisted of bevacizumab 10mg/kg q2wks. + interferon 9*106 IE 3x/week (BEV/IFN). Upon progression or intolerance, patients were re-screened and randomized between VEGFRi (axitinib 5 mg BID, dose-escalation permitted; sunitinib 50 mg OD, 4-2 regimen) and everolimus (EVE) treatment (10 mg OD). Cross-over occurred at time of progression or intolerance. Improvement of 2nd line PFS-rate at 6 mo. from 50% to 65% was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were PFS, total PFS, ORR, OS, safety and HR-QoL. Results: Between November 2012 and June 2015 a total of 22 of 100 patients were included and at that time stopped for poor accrual. 10 pts. (46%) were randomized to receive 2nd line treatment with everolimus (n = 5) or VEGFRi (n = 5). At study entry (2/10) 20% had nephrectomy. ECOG 0 was recorded in 20% (EVE) and 60% (VEGFRi), respectively. Objective response rate (ORR) to 1st line BEV/IFN was 20%. In 2nd line treatment all patients experienced adverse events (AE). Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 2/5 (40%) (EVE) and 4/5 (80%) (VEGFRi) pts., respectively. SAEs occurred in 3/5 (60%) in each arm. ORR was 1/5 (20%) for axitinib and 0/5 (0%) for EVE. PFS rate at 180 days was 20% in each arm. Median PFS was 3.7 (EVE) and 2.2 mo. (VEGFRi) HR 1.0 (95%CI 0.26-3.85; p = 0.997). OS was comparable between arms HR 1.12 (95%CI 0.27-4.61; P = 0.872). 7 pts. crossed over to 3rd line treatment. Conclusions: The small number of pts. randomized to EVE or VEGFRi is a major limitation of our trial, but may mirror the current change of treatment reality. However, no significant difference was detected for the PFS rate at 6 mo., indicating the limited activity of EVE or VEGFRi in 2nd line treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT01731158.

scholarly journals Thyroid function test abnormalities in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sorafenib

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Tamaskar ◽  
R. Bukowski ◽  
P. Elson ◽  
A.G. Ioachimescu ◽  
L. Wood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Thyroid Function ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Thyroid Function Test ◽  
Function Test

Activity of retreatment with sorafenib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 404-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Nozawa ◽  
N. Matsumura ◽  
M. Yasuda ◽  
Y. Okuda ◽  
H. Uemura
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Interleukin 2 ◽  
Severe Toxicity ◽  
Sorafenib Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

404 Background: Treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have increased. Complete remission is, however, rarely seen and patients are treated with multiple sequential therapies. We assessed clinical activity of sorafenib rechallenge after progressing on other therapies. Methods: Patients with mRCC who received a second course of sorafenib therapy after failure of prior sorafenib and other agents were retrospectively identified. RECIST-defined objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity were analyzed. Results: Fourteen patients with mRCC who were retreated with sorafenib were identified and twelve patients were assessable for this study. 92% were male. Median age at first systemic therapy was 63 years. Prior nephrectomy was performed in 92% of patients. 42% of patients had favorable or intermediate risk, 17% poor, and the rest not available per MSKCC criteria. Eighty-three percent of patients were treated with other agents before initial sorafenib therapy, including 75% interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha), 50% interleukin-2 (IL-2), and 17% sunitinib. First sorafenib therapy began a median of 9.0 months after the diagnosis of mRCC and produced a clinical benefit (PR + SD) rate of 75% and a median PFS of 5.0 months. 67% of patients discontinued initial sorafenib for disease progression and 33% for adverse events. Interval between discontinuation of initial sorafenib and rechallenge was a median of 7.6 months. During the intervening period, 50% of patients were treated with sunitinib, 33% with everolimus, 25% with VEGFR1 vaccine, and others. Clinical benefit rate of 67% and a median PFS of 4.3 months were obtained on sorafenib rechallenge. There was no significant difference in outcome to sorafenib rechallenge based on duration between sorafenib treatments or number or type of intervening treatments. No new severe toxicity was observed during rechallenge. Conclusions: Sorafenib rechallenge has potential to achieve clinical benefits, is well-tolerated, and may be considered after multiple sequential therapies in select mRCC patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Survival comparison analysis of two historical cohorts of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients (cytokine therapy versus targeted agents): A European single-center experience over 26 years.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 513-513
Author(s):  
Georg C. Hutterer ◽  
Silvia V. Golbeck ◽  
Edvin Mrsic ◽  
Daniel Krieger ◽  
Angelika Bezan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Entire Study ◽  
Significant Difference

513 Background: By the approval of new targeted agents in 2006, the standard of therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) changed, since they demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) rates compared with interferon in phase III clinical trials. Differences in overall survival (OS) could not be proven since many patients switched to another effective substance after progression of the disease. Thus, we compared two mRCC patient cohorts in order to detect OS differences between immunotherapy and targeted therapies in a real-life population outside controlled clinical trials. Methods: Clinico-pathological data from 594 mRCC patients, operated between 1984 and 2010 at a single tertiary academic center, were evaluated retrospectively with the null hypothesis, that there is no statistically significant difference in OS of patients treated either with interferon or targeted agents. Using electronical patient records, all data regarding the beginning, duration, lines, and different forms of therapies were assessed. Patients’ cancer-specific survival (CSS), as well as OS, were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, compared with the log-rank test. A first analysis revealed results for the entire study cohort. Subsequently, outcome analyses were restricted to mRCC patients with clear cell histology only. Results: With respect to the complete follow-up period, our results in both analyses did not show a statistically significant OS difference between the two therapy modalities. By limiting the observation period to 5 years after treatment initiation, a statistically significantly improved median five-year OS rate (26 mo.) for clear cell mRCC patients treated with targeted agents was observed, compared with 21 mo. in the interferon group (p=0.028). Conclusions: Our results confirm the presumption of an improved OS in mRCC attributable to treatments with targeted agents compared with previous cytokine therapies.

Sunitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy followed by sorefenib and sunitinib for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with clear cell histology: A multicenter randomized trial, CROSS-J-RCC.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 469-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshihiko Tomita ◽  
Sei Naito ◽  
Naoto Sassa ◽  
Atsushi Takahashi ◽  
Tsunenori Kondo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Standard Dosage ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

469 Background: SWITCH, a prospective, randomized sequential trial to evaluate SU/SO versus SO/SU, revealed no difference in first-line or total PFS or OS, but no direct comparison was obtained between 1st line sunitinib (SU) and sorafenib (SO) for clear cell (CC) metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Methods: Treatment-naïve patients with CC mRCC, ECOG PS 0/1 and MSKCC favorable or intermediate risk were randomized to receive open-label SU/SO or SO/SU at the standard dosage and schedule. The primary endpoint was 1st line PFS, and secondary endpoints were total PFS and OS. The calculated sample size was 59 per group, with α = 0.05, β = 0.10, and a censoring rate of 15%. Results: Of 124 patients enrolled in this study from February 2010 to July 2012 from 39 institutions, 120 could be evaluated (SU/SO, 57 and SO/SU, 63). Baseline patients' characteristics in the SU/SO and SO/SU groups were as follows: favorable risk, 21% and 22%; and presence ofnephrectomy, 88% and 89%, respectively. First-line mPFS was 8.7 and 7.0 months in the SU/SO and SO/SU groups, respectively (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42–1.08; p= 0.095). There was no statistically significant difference in total (T)-PFS, 27.8 M, and 22.6 m (HR 0.73, CI 0.428-1.246; p=0.247), or OS 38.4 m and 30.9 m (HR 0.934, CI 0.588-1.485; p=0.773). Subgroup analyses showed that T-PFS was NR and 27.8 m (p=0.021) in the favorable risk, and 38.4 m and 16.1 m (p=0.009) in with less than 5 metastatic sites, 6.5 m and 13.6 m (p=0.025) without nephrectomy in the SU/SO and SO/SU groups, respectively. The most common adverse events (AEs) in case of first-line SU or SO (all grade, all cause) were hand–foot syndrome (71% vs. 86%), hypothyroidism (70% vs. 33%), fatigue (57% vs. 40%), hypertension (55% vs. 44%), and diarrhea (23% vs. 38%). AEs were generally lower during second-line therapy. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in first-line PFS, T-PFS, and OS between the two sequential treatments. Although fewer patients received second-line treatment in the SU/SO group, OS in this group was numerically longer than that in the SO/SU group. Clinical trial information: 01481870.

Interleukin-2, interferon alpha and 5-fluorouracil immunochemotherapy with and without 13-cis-retinoic acid in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results of a prospective randomized trial

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14571-14571
Author(s):  
S. Bierer ◽  
M. E. Bode ◽  
O. A. Brinkmann ◽  
L. Hertle
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Retinoic Acid ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Interferon Alpha ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Interleukin 2 ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group B

14571 Background: Combined immunochemotherapy with interleukin 2, interferon alpha and 5-fluorouracil in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma has shown objective response rates up to 30% and more. The therapeutic effect of adding 13-cis-retinoic acid still remains controversial. Methods: Between 05/2001 and 11/2003 we randomly assigned patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma either to receive a combined immunochemotherapy of interleukin 2 (s.c.), interferon alpha (s.c.) and 5-fluorouracil (i.v.) = group A or the same regimen plus 3 × 20 mg 13-cis-retinoic acid daily (p.o.) = group B. 83 patients were eligible (41 in group A and 43 in group B). All patients had ECOG 0 or 1 and no prior systemic therapy. Objective response (OR = Complete response, CR + Partial response, PR + Stable disease, SD), time to progression (TTP) and median survival were determined. Results: Patient characteristics were well balanced between both groups. There was no significant difference in objective response between both groups (A/B: CR 2%/2%, PR 22%/5%, SD 46%/69%, p = 0.8). The responders in both groups showed no significant difference in TTP (A/B: 11.5/9.5 months, p = 0.4). Median survival was 23 months for all patients with no significant difference between the two groups (A/B: 26/22 months, p = 0.42). Slightly more therapeutic side effects (e.g. mucositis) were seen in group B. Conclusions: The addition of 13-cis-retinoic acid to a combined immunochemotherapy of interleukin 2, interferon alpha and 5-fluorouracil in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma does not seem to have a therapeutic benefit. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

High-dose bolus interleukin-2: Correlating response rate with number of doses received.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 452-452
Author(s):  
Jolly Patel ◽  
Mayer N. Fishman ◽  
Dawn Goetz
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cumulative Dose ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Interleukin 2 ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Significant Difference

452 Background: Administration of high-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) has higher response and survival rates when compared to low dose or subcutaneous administration. In patients who achieve a response, it may be at the expense of more toxicity risk, from more doses. The association of the major response rate with the number of high dose boluses or cumulative dose received is of interest. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate a direct correlation with response and cumulative dose or the total number of doses received. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received high dose bolus IL-2 from September 30th, 1999 to September 30th, 2010. The cumulative dose and the number of doses of IL-2 received was recorded and associated with categorical complete response [CR], partial response [PR], stable disease [SD] or progressive disease [PD] response, by treating physician assessment. Sites of metastasis were also documented. The incidence of adverse effects such as renal failure, transaminitis, cardiac arrhythmias, thrombocytopenia as well as rates of infection and ICU transfers were tabulated. Results: 31 out of 55 patients analyzed were assessed at least with stable disease in response to IL-2. Six achieved a CR, 11 achieved a PR, 14 had stable disease and 24 patients had PD as best responses. Among those with CR or PR to IL-2, they received approximately 30 doses of IL-2 (p=0.027 vs. those not in that category). Converesely, those who received a higher cumulative dose were also more likely to respond (p=0.0077). With respect to adverse events, 58% of patients experienced acute renal insufficiency, 63% transaminitis, 40% arrhythmias, and 45% thrombocytopenia. 55% required dopamine use at any point and 11% required use of additional pressors; 15% required an ICU transfer at some point, and approximately 4% developed a documented infection. Conclusions: Cumulative dose or number of high dose bolus doses received is associated with a statistically significant difference in response rate, within the limitations of this retrospective analysis.

scholarly journals Real-world outcomes of nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Stukalin ◽  
J. C. Wells ◽  
J. Graham ◽  
T. Yuasa ◽  
B. Beuselinck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives In the present study, we explored the real-world efficacy of the immuno-oncology checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in the second-line setting.Methods Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (imdc) dataset, a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in the second line after prior therapy targeted to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (vegfr) was performed. Baseline characteristics and imdc risk factors were collected. Overall survival (os) and time to treatment failure (ttf) were calculated using Kaplan–Meier curves. Overall response rates (orrs) were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences between cabozantinib and nivolumab treatment.Results The analysis included 225 patients treated with nivolumab and 53 treated with cabozantinib. No significant difference in median os was observed: 22.10 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 17.18 months to not reached] with nivolumab and 23.70 months (95% ci: 15.52 months to not reached) with cabozantinib (p = 0.61). The ttf was also similar at 6.90 months (95% ci: 4.60 months to 9.20 months) with nivolumab and 7.39 months (95% ci: 5.52 months to 12.85 months) with cabozantinib (p = 0.20). The adjusted hazard ratio (hr) for nivolumab compared with cabozantinib was 1.30 (95% ci: 0.73 to 2.3), p = 0.38. When adjusted by imdc criteria and age, the hr was 1.32 (95% ci: 0.74 to 2.38), p = 0.35.Conclusions Real-world imdc data indicate comparable os and ttf for nivolumab and cabozantinib. Both agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line vegfr-targeted therapy.

First results of a randomized phase IB study comparing nivolumab/ipilimumab with or without CBM-588 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4513-4513
Author(s):  
Luis A Meza ◽  
Nazli Dizman ◽  
Paulo Gustavo Bergerot ◽  
Tanya B. Dorff ◽  
Yung Lyou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Microbial Diversity ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Gut Microbiome ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Bacterial Species ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Metagenomic Sequencing ◽  
Significant Difference

4513 Background: Recent evidence suggests that the gut microbiome is a potent mediator of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), with both specific bacterial species and cumulative microbial diversity driving response (Routy et al Science 2018; Salgia et al Eur Urol 2020). We examined whether the butyrate-producing bacterium Clostridium butyricum, the key constituent of CBM-588, could modulate the gut microbiome in patients (pts) with mRCC receiving nivolumab/ipilimumab (N/I) and secondarily improve clinical outcome. Methods: An open-label, randomized study was conducted, with key eligibility criteria including confirmed clear cell and/or sarcomatoid mRCC, intermediate/poor risk by IMDC criteria and no systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either N/I+CBM-588 or N/I alone. N/I was dosed at 3 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 12 weeks, followed by N at 480 mg IV every 4 weeks. CBM-588 was dosed orally at 80 mg bid. Stool was collected for bacteriomic profiling at baseline and 12 weeks. Metagenomic sequencing was employed using previously published methods (Dizman et al Cancer Med 2020). The primary endpoint of the study was change in Bifidobacterium spp. from baseline to week 12. Secondary endpoints included change in microbial diversity and clinical outcomes including response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: 30 pts were randomized between April 2019 and Nov 2020; 1 pt was excluded after genomic sequencing clarified a diagnosis of sarcoma. Among 29 evaluable patients (21:8 M:F), median age was 66, 10 pts (34%) had sarcomatoid features and 24 pts (83%) were intermediate risk. Metagenomic sequencing of paired stool specimens showed an 8-fold increase in B. bifidum and a 6-fold increase in B. adolescentis in pts receiving N/I+CBM-588 from baseline to week 12. C. butyricum was detected only in pts receiving CBM-588. Pathogenic species (e.g., Escherichia. coli and Klebsiella spp.) were more prevalent in pts not receiving CBM-588. RR was significantly higher among pts receiving N/I+CBM-588 vs N/I alone (59% vs 11%; P = 0.024). Median PFS was also prolonged with the addition of CBM-588 to N/I (NR vs 11 weeks; P < 0.001). No significant difference in grade 3/4 toxicities were observed between study arms. Conclusions: This is the first randomized, prospective study to suggest enhancement of ICI response with a live bacterial product. The observed clinical impact is corroborated by biologic findings supporting gut modulation by CBM-588. Clinical trial information: NCT03829111.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document