User login
Phase 1 study: Human IL-10 plus checkpoint blockade looks promising in RCC, NSCLC
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Pegylated human interleukin-10 in combination with anti–PD-1 therapy is well tolerated and shows promise for the treatment of both renal cell carcinoma and non–small cell lung cancer, according to findings from a phase 1 study.
The IL-10 product, AM0010 (pegilodecakin), was shown to be well tolerated as monotherapy, and was evaluated in combination with anti–PD-1 therapy in the two expansion cohorts included in the current analysis, Martin Oft, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
Of 34 evaluable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients included in one expansion cohort, 15 (44%) had an objective response at a median follow-up of 27 months, and two of those had a complete response (CR), Dr. Oft of ARMO BioSciences, Redwood City, Calif. reported.
In contrast, only 4 of 16 evaluable patients who received AM0010 monotherapy (25%) had an objective response, he said.
In eight patients who received AM0010 + pembrolizumab (Keytruda), the objective response rate was 50%, and both patients who had a complete response were in that group. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.7 months. In 26 who received AM0010 + nivolumab (Opdivo), 11 had an objective response, but neither the complete response nor PFS rates had been reached in patients in that group, he noted.
The responses were durable.
“In fact, we had one patient who stopped treatment after a year in [complete remission] and is now 1 year in total remission without any further treatment,” he said.
Patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) also experienced some benefit from the combination therapy. Objective responses were observed in 11 of 27 evaluable NSCLC patients (41%) who were treated with AM0010 and an anti–PD-1(9 of 22 [41%] who received AM0010 and nivolumab, and 2 of 5 [40%] who received AM0010 and pembrolizumab).
Progression-free survival was not reached in this cohort.
An analysis by PD-L1 status showed that 33% of NSCLC patients with PD-L1 levels less than 1% achieved a response, 67% of those with PD-L1 levels of 1%-49% achieved a response, and 80% of those with PD-L1 levels of 50% or greater achieved a response, he said, adding that the responses were very durable in all three groups.
Of note, NSCLC patients with liver metastasis have been shown in prior trials to have a lower overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibition, but in this trial, 7 of 9 patients with NSCLC metastasis to the liver had a partial response (PR), Dr. Oft said.
The RCC and NSCLC patients had a median of 1 and 2 prior therapies, respectively.
AM0010 was given subcutaneously at a dose of 10 or 20 mcg/kg daily, pembrolizumab was given intravenously at 2mg/kg every 3 weeks, and nivolumab was given intravenously at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks.
Treatment-related adverse events included anemia, thrombocytopenia, and fatigue, and all were reversible and transient, Dr. Oft said, noting that grade 3 or 4 adverse events were mostly absent in patients receiving the lower dose; thus the recommended phase 2 dose is 10 mcg/kg.
“It’s important to note that three of those six patients [receiving the lower dose] in fact had a PR or CR so this lower dose did not come at the expense of efficacy,” he added.
The mechanistic rationale for combining AM0010 and anti-PD1 for the treatment of cancer patients lies in the fact that IL‐10 has anti‐inflammatory functions and stimulates the cytotoxicity and proliferation of antigen-activated CD8+ T cells. T cell receptor–mediated activation of CD8+ T cells elevates IL‐10 receptors and PD‐1, Dr. Oft explained.
The robust efficacy data and the observed CD8+ T cell activation seen in these expansion cohorts is promising and encourages the continued study of AM0010 in combination with PD-1 inhibition, he concluded, noting that larger studies are planned for the coming year.
Dr. Oft is a founder and employee of ARMO BioSciences, which sponsored this study.
SOURCE: Naing A et al. SITC Abstract 012.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Pegylated human interleukin-10 in combination with anti–PD-1 therapy is well tolerated and shows promise for the treatment of both renal cell carcinoma and non–small cell lung cancer, according to findings from a phase 1 study.
The IL-10 product, AM0010 (pegilodecakin), was shown to be well tolerated as monotherapy, and was evaluated in combination with anti–PD-1 therapy in the two expansion cohorts included in the current analysis, Martin Oft, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
Of 34 evaluable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients included in one expansion cohort, 15 (44%) had an objective response at a median follow-up of 27 months, and two of those had a complete response (CR), Dr. Oft of ARMO BioSciences, Redwood City, Calif. reported.
In contrast, only 4 of 16 evaluable patients who received AM0010 monotherapy (25%) had an objective response, he said.
In eight patients who received AM0010 + pembrolizumab (Keytruda), the objective response rate was 50%, and both patients who had a complete response were in that group. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.7 months. In 26 who received AM0010 + nivolumab (Opdivo), 11 had an objective response, but neither the complete response nor PFS rates had been reached in patients in that group, he noted.
The responses were durable.
“In fact, we had one patient who stopped treatment after a year in [complete remission] and is now 1 year in total remission without any further treatment,” he said.
Patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) also experienced some benefit from the combination therapy. Objective responses were observed in 11 of 27 evaluable NSCLC patients (41%) who were treated with AM0010 and an anti–PD-1(9 of 22 [41%] who received AM0010 and nivolumab, and 2 of 5 [40%] who received AM0010 and pembrolizumab).
Progression-free survival was not reached in this cohort.
An analysis by PD-L1 status showed that 33% of NSCLC patients with PD-L1 levels less than 1% achieved a response, 67% of those with PD-L1 levels of 1%-49% achieved a response, and 80% of those with PD-L1 levels of 50% or greater achieved a response, he said, adding that the responses were very durable in all three groups.
Of note, NSCLC patients with liver metastasis have been shown in prior trials to have a lower overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibition, but in this trial, 7 of 9 patients with NSCLC metastasis to the liver had a partial response (PR), Dr. Oft said.
The RCC and NSCLC patients had a median of 1 and 2 prior therapies, respectively.
AM0010 was given subcutaneously at a dose of 10 or 20 mcg/kg daily, pembrolizumab was given intravenously at 2mg/kg every 3 weeks, and nivolumab was given intravenously at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks.
Treatment-related adverse events included anemia, thrombocytopenia, and fatigue, and all were reversible and transient, Dr. Oft said, noting that grade 3 or 4 adverse events were mostly absent in patients receiving the lower dose; thus the recommended phase 2 dose is 10 mcg/kg.
“It’s important to note that three of those six patients [receiving the lower dose] in fact had a PR or CR so this lower dose did not come at the expense of efficacy,” he added.
The mechanistic rationale for combining AM0010 and anti-PD1 for the treatment of cancer patients lies in the fact that IL‐10 has anti‐inflammatory functions and stimulates the cytotoxicity and proliferation of antigen-activated CD8+ T cells. T cell receptor–mediated activation of CD8+ T cells elevates IL‐10 receptors and PD‐1, Dr. Oft explained.
The robust efficacy data and the observed CD8+ T cell activation seen in these expansion cohorts is promising and encourages the continued study of AM0010 in combination with PD-1 inhibition, he concluded, noting that larger studies are planned for the coming year.
Dr. Oft is a founder and employee of ARMO BioSciences, which sponsored this study.
SOURCE: Naing A et al. SITC Abstract 012.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Pegylated human interleukin-10 in combination with anti–PD-1 therapy is well tolerated and shows promise for the treatment of both renal cell carcinoma and non–small cell lung cancer, according to findings from a phase 1 study.
The IL-10 product, AM0010 (pegilodecakin), was shown to be well tolerated as monotherapy, and was evaluated in combination with anti–PD-1 therapy in the two expansion cohorts included in the current analysis, Martin Oft, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
Of 34 evaluable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients included in one expansion cohort, 15 (44%) had an objective response at a median follow-up of 27 months, and two of those had a complete response (CR), Dr. Oft of ARMO BioSciences, Redwood City, Calif. reported.
In contrast, only 4 of 16 evaluable patients who received AM0010 monotherapy (25%) had an objective response, he said.
In eight patients who received AM0010 + pembrolizumab (Keytruda), the objective response rate was 50%, and both patients who had a complete response were in that group. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.7 months. In 26 who received AM0010 + nivolumab (Opdivo), 11 had an objective response, but neither the complete response nor PFS rates had been reached in patients in that group, he noted.
The responses were durable.
“In fact, we had one patient who stopped treatment after a year in [complete remission] and is now 1 year in total remission without any further treatment,” he said.
Patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) also experienced some benefit from the combination therapy. Objective responses were observed in 11 of 27 evaluable NSCLC patients (41%) who were treated with AM0010 and an anti–PD-1(9 of 22 [41%] who received AM0010 and nivolumab, and 2 of 5 [40%] who received AM0010 and pembrolizumab).
Progression-free survival was not reached in this cohort.
An analysis by PD-L1 status showed that 33% of NSCLC patients with PD-L1 levels less than 1% achieved a response, 67% of those with PD-L1 levels of 1%-49% achieved a response, and 80% of those with PD-L1 levels of 50% or greater achieved a response, he said, adding that the responses were very durable in all three groups.
Of note, NSCLC patients with liver metastasis have been shown in prior trials to have a lower overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibition, but in this trial, 7 of 9 patients with NSCLC metastasis to the liver had a partial response (PR), Dr. Oft said.
The RCC and NSCLC patients had a median of 1 and 2 prior therapies, respectively.
AM0010 was given subcutaneously at a dose of 10 or 20 mcg/kg daily, pembrolizumab was given intravenously at 2mg/kg every 3 weeks, and nivolumab was given intravenously at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks.
Treatment-related adverse events included anemia, thrombocytopenia, and fatigue, and all were reversible and transient, Dr. Oft said, noting that grade 3 or 4 adverse events were mostly absent in patients receiving the lower dose; thus the recommended phase 2 dose is 10 mcg/kg.
“It’s important to note that three of those six patients [receiving the lower dose] in fact had a PR or CR so this lower dose did not come at the expense of efficacy,” he added.
The mechanistic rationale for combining AM0010 and anti-PD1 for the treatment of cancer patients lies in the fact that IL‐10 has anti‐inflammatory functions and stimulates the cytotoxicity and proliferation of antigen-activated CD8+ T cells. T cell receptor–mediated activation of CD8+ T cells elevates IL‐10 receptors and PD‐1, Dr. Oft explained.
The robust efficacy data and the observed CD8+ T cell activation seen in these expansion cohorts is promising and encourages the continued study of AM0010 in combination with PD-1 inhibition, he concluded, noting that larger studies are planned for the coming year.
Dr. Oft is a founder and employee of ARMO BioSciences, which sponsored this study.
SOURCE: Naing A et al. SITC Abstract 012.
REPORTING FROM SITC 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: 15 of 34 RCC patients had an objective response and two of those had a complete response.
Study details: Expansion cohorts including 64 patients from a phase 1 study.
Disclosures: Dr. Oft is a founder and employee of ARMO BioSciences, which sponsored this study.
Source: A. Naing et al. SITC 2017 Abstract 012.
In Brazil, few patients get second- and third-line treatment for metastatic RCC
, a retrospective study showed.
Of 3,990 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), 79% received an appropriate first-line treatment – mainly a vascular endothelial growth factor agent. But only 20% went on to get a second-line agent, and just 5% received a third-line agent, Paulo G. Bergerot, MD, and his colleagues reported in the Journal of Global Oncology.
Patients in private institutions were significantly more likely to receive appropriate first- and second-line treatment than those in public institutions, although the numbers receiving third-line agents were similarly low, reported Dr. Bergerot of the Federal University of São Paulo and his coauthors.
The study highlights sharp discrepancies between treatment in Brazil and more developed countries, the team noted.
“Previous reports from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium suggest that approximately 48% of patients who receive first-line therapy proceed to second-line therapy. In addition, among patients who received first-line therapy in this experience, approximately 21% received third-line therapy,” the investigators wrote.
The reasons behind the differences aren’t entirely clear, but cost and clinicians’ knowledge of emerging study data could be major factors, they suggested.
“In particular, we suspect limited availability and cost of second-line treatments to be a barrier, although our data set did not have the capability of confirming this. Another barrier to receipt of second-line therapy might be educational gaps among practitioners. Emerging data from phase 3 studies supporting the use of agents in the refractory setting may not be widely broadcast. The discordance in receipt of therapies in private and public settings is perhaps the greatest indication that financial and social barriers likely affect treatment paradigms in Brazil,” the authors wrote.
Slow dissemination of clinical knowledge may also be reflected in another of the team’s findings: 240 patients received “nontraditional” first-line cytotoxic treatments, which lacked regulatory approval and had little supporting evidence for treating mRCC, the investigators reported.
Dr. Bergerot had no relevant financial disclosures, although several of his coauthors reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Bergerot et al. J Glob Oncol. 2017 Dec 27. doi: 10.1200/JGO.17.00113.
, a retrospective study showed.
Of 3,990 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), 79% received an appropriate first-line treatment – mainly a vascular endothelial growth factor agent. But only 20% went on to get a second-line agent, and just 5% received a third-line agent, Paulo G. Bergerot, MD, and his colleagues reported in the Journal of Global Oncology.
Patients in private institutions were significantly more likely to receive appropriate first- and second-line treatment than those in public institutions, although the numbers receiving third-line agents were similarly low, reported Dr. Bergerot of the Federal University of São Paulo and his coauthors.
The study highlights sharp discrepancies between treatment in Brazil and more developed countries, the team noted.
“Previous reports from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium suggest that approximately 48% of patients who receive first-line therapy proceed to second-line therapy. In addition, among patients who received first-line therapy in this experience, approximately 21% received third-line therapy,” the investigators wrote.
The reasons behind the differences aren’t entirely clear, but cost and clinicians’ knowledge of emerging study data could be major factors, they suggested.
“In particular, we suspect limited availability and cost of second-line treatments to be a barrier, although our data set did not have the capability of confirming this. Another barrier to receipt of second-line therapy might be educational gaps among practitioners. Emerging data from phase 3 studies supporting the use of agents in the refractory setting may not be widely broadcast. The discordance in receipt of therapies in private and public settings is perhaps the greatest indication that financial and social barriers likely affect treatment paradigms in Brazil,” the authors wrote.
Slow dissemination of clinical knowledge may also be reflected in another of the team’s findings: 240 patients received “nontraditional” first-line cytotoxic treatments, which lacked regulatory approval and had little supporting evidence for treating mRCC, the investigators reported.
Dr. Bergerot had no relevant financial disclosures, although several of his coauthors reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Bergerot et al. J Glob Oncol. 2017 Dec 27. doi: 10.1200/JGO.17.00113.
, a retrospective study showed.
Of 3,990 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), 79% received an appropriate first-line treatment – mainly a vascular endothelial growth factor agent. But only 20% went on to get a second-line agent, and just 5% received a third-line agent, Paulo G. Bergerot, MD, and his colleagues reported in the Journal of Global Oncology.
Patients in private institutions were significantly more likely to receive appropriate first- and second-line treatment than those in public institutions, although the numbers receiving third-line agents were similarly low, reported Dr. Bergerot of the Federal University of São Paulo and his coauthors.
The study highlights sharp discrepancies between treatment in Brazil and more developed countries, the team noted.
“Previous reports from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium suggest that approximately 48% of patients who receive first-line therapy proceed to second-line therapy. In addition, among patients who received first-line therapy in this experience, approximately 21% received third-line therapy,” the investigators wrote.
The reasons behind the differences aren’t entirely clear, but cost and clinicians’ knowledge of emerging study data could be major factors, they suggested.
“In particular, we suspect limited availability and cost of second-line treatments to be a barrier, although our data set did not have the capability of confirming this. Another barrier to receipt of second-line therapy might be educational gaps among practitioners. Emerging data from phase 3 studies supporting the use of agents in the refractory setting may not be widely broadcast. The discordance in receipt of therapies in private and public settings is perhaps the greatest indication that financial and social barriers likely affect treatment paradigms in Brazil,” the authors wrote.
Slow dissemination of clinical knowledge may also be reflected in another of the team’s findings: 240 patients received “nontraditional” first-line cytotoxic treatments, which lacked regulatory approval and had little supporting evidence for treating mRCC, the investigators reported.
Dr. Bergerot had no relevant financial disclosures, although several of his coauthors reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Bergerot et al. J Glob Oncol. 2017 Dec 27. doi: 10.1200/JGO.17.00113.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: Few Brazilians with mRCC receive anything after their first-line treatment.
Major finding: First-line agents were used in 79% of the cohort, but only 20% got second-line treatments and just 5%, third-line treatment.
Study details: A retrospective database study involving 3,990 patients with mRCC.
Disclosures: Dr. Bergerot had no relevant financial disclosures, although several of his coauthors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
Source: Bergerot et al. J Glob Oncol. 2017 Dec 27. doi: 10.1200/JGO.17.00113.
Mutations linked to checkpoint inhibitor response in RCC
in a derivation and validation study involving a total of 98 patients.
This finding “has important implications as a molecular tool for considering immunotherapy responsiveness” in patients with ccRCC and possibly patients with other cancer types, wrote Eliezer M. Van Allen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and coauthors.
The derivation cohort included 35 patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with nivolumab in a prospective clinical trial. Genome sequencing of pretreatment tumor specimens showed that improved survival after treatment was significantly linked with truncating mutations in a gene, PBRM1, that codes for a protein in the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex. Patients in the derivation cohort who had these mutations were nearly 13-fold more likely to have clinical benefit from treatment, compared with those without these mutations.
The validation study included specimens and treatment-outcome results from 63 patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with either nivolumab or a different checkpoint inhibitor, such as atezolizumab (Tecentriq). In the validation study, PBRM1 mutations linked with a sixfold higher rate of clinical benefit from treatment.
The researchers noted that the types of mutations they identified as likely involved occur in more than 20% of all cancer types. Results from mouse studies have suggested that tumor cells with these types of mutations are more sensitive to T cell–mediated cytotoxicity, an observation that “lends a mechanistic basis” to the observed findings.
The study received funding in part from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that markets nivolumab (Obdivo). Several researchers involved in this study have received honoraria and research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and from several other drug companies.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
SOURCE: Miao D et al. Science. 2018 Jan 4. doi: 10.1126/science.aan5951
in a derivation and validation study involving a total of 98 patients.
This finding “has important implications as a molecular tool for considering immunotherapy responsiveness” in patients with ccRCC and possibly patients with other cancer types, wrote Eliezer M. Van Allen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and coauthors.
The derivation cohort included 35 patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with nivolumab in a prospective clinical trial. Genome sequencing of pretreatment tumor specimens showed that improved survival after treatment was significantly linked with truncating mutations in a gene, PBRM1, that codes for a protein in the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex. Patients in the derivation cohort who had these mutations were nearly 13-fold more likely to have clinical benefit from treatment, compared with those without these mutations.
The validation study included specimens and treatment-outcome results from 63 patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with either nivolumab or a different checkpoint inhibitor, such as atezolizumab (Tecentriq). In the validation study, PBRM1 mutations linked with a sixfold higher rate of clinical benefit from treatment.
The researchers noted that the types of mutations they identified as likely involved occur in more than 20% of all cancer types. Results from mouse studies have suggested that tumor cells with these types of mutations are more sensitive to T cell–mediated cytotoxicity, an observation that “lends a mechanistic basis” to the observed findings.
The study received funding in part from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that markets nivolumab (Obdivo). Several researchers involved in this study have received honoraria and research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and from several other drug companies.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
SOURCE: Miao D et al. Science. 2018 Jan 4. doi: 10.1126/science.aan5951
in a derivation and validation study involving a total of 98 patients.
This finding “has important implications as a molecular tool for considering immunotherapy responsiveness” in patients with ccRCC and possibly patients with other cancer types, wrote Eliezer M. Van Allen, MD, of Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and coauthors.
The derivation cohort included 35 patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with nivolumab in a prospective clinical trial. Genome sequencing of pretreatment tumor specimens showed that improved survival after treatment was significantly linked with truncating mutations in a gene, PBRM1, that codes for a protein in the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex. Patients in the derivation cohort who had these mutations were nearly 13-fold more likely to have clinical benefit from treatment, compared with those without these mutations.
The validation study included specimens and treatment-outcome results from 63 patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with either nivolumab or a different checkpoint inhibitor, such as atezolizumab (Tecentriq). In the validation study, PBRM1 mutations linked with a sixfold higher rate of clinical benefit from treatment.
The researchers noted that the types of mutations they identified as likely involved occur in more than 20% of all cancer types. Results from mouse studies have suggested that tumor cells with these types of mutations are more sensitive to T cell–mediated cytotoxicity, an observation that “lends a mechanistic basis” to the observed findings.
The study received funding in part from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that markets nivolumab (Obdivo). Several researchers involved in this study have received honoraria and research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and from several other drug companies.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
SOURCE: Miao D et al. Science. 2018 Jan 4. doi: 10.1126/science.aan5951
FROM SCIENCE
Key clinical point: Mutations in PBRM1 linked with better survival after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
Major finding: Patients with a PBRM1 mutation were 6- to 13-fold more likely to have clinical benefit from checkpoint inhibitor treatment.
Study details: Derivation and validation studies that included 98 total patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Disclosures: The study received funding in part from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that markets nivolumab (Obdivo). Several researchers involved in this study have received honoraria and research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and from several other drug companies.
Source: Miao D et al. Science. 2018 Jan 4. doi: 10.1126/science.aan5951.
FDA approves cabozantinib for the frontline treatment of advanced RCC
The Food and Drug Administration has approved cabozantinib for the frontline treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
The drug was approved in 2016 for patients who had received prior antiangiogenic therapy.
The expanded approval was based on improvement in progression-free survival when compared with sunitinib in the phase 2 CABOSUN trial of 157 patients with previously untreated RCC, according to a statement from the company.
Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions were reported in 68% of patients receiving cabozantinib, compared with 65% of patients receiving sunitinib. The most frequent adverse reactions in patients treated with cabozantinib were hypertension, diarrhea, hyponatremia, hypophosphatemia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, fatigue, increased ALT, decreased appetite, stomatitis, pain, hypotension, and syncope. Approximately one-fifth of patients discontinued treatment in both arms.
Cabozantinib is marketed as Cabometyx by Exelixis.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved cabozantinib for the frontline treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
The drug was approved in 2016 for patients who had received prior antiangiogenic therapy.
The expanded approval was based on improvement in progression-free survival when compared with sunitinib in the phase 2 CABOSUN trial of 157 patients with previously untreated RCC, according to a statement from the company.
Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions were reported in 68% of patients receiving cabozantinib, compared with 65% of patients receiving sunitinib. The most frequent adverse reactions in patients treated with cabozantinib were hypertension, diarrhea, hyponatremia, hypophosphatemia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, fatigue, increased ALT, decreased appetite, stomatitis, pain, hypotension, and syncope. Approximately one-fifth of patients discontinued treatment in both arms.
Cabozantinib is marketed as Cabometyx by Exelixis.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved cabozantinib for the frontline treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
The drug was approved in 2016 for patients who had received prior antiangiogenic therapy.
The expanded approval was based on improvement in progression-free survival when compared with sunitinib in the phase 2 CABOSUN trial of 157 patients with previously untreated RCC, according to a statement from the company.
Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions were reported in 68% of patients receiving cabozantinib, compared with 65% of patients receiving sunitinib. The most frequent adverse reactions in patients treated with cabozantinib were hypertension, diarrhea, hyponatremia, hypophosphatemia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, fatigue, increased ALT, decreased appetite, stomatitis, pain, hypotension, and syncope. Approximately one-fifth of patients discontinued treatment in both arms.
Cabozantinib is marketed as Cabometyx by Exelixis.
First-in-class glutaminase inhibitor combats anti-PD-1/PD-L1 resistance
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Combination treatment with the first-in-class glutaminase inhibitor CB-839 and nivolumab is well-tolerated and shows clinical activity in patients with advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, or non-small cell lung cancer, including anti-PD-1/PD-L1 refractory patients, according to initial results from a phase 1/2 study.
Responses in melanoma patients who were progressing on nivolumab at study entry and who were refractory to multiple prior immunotherapy regimens are particularly notable, as they highlight the potential for CB-839, when added to nivolumab (Opdivo), to help overcome resistance to anti-PD-L1 therapy, Funda Meric‐Bernstam, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
CB‐839 is highly selective and targets tumor glutamine metabolism, said Dr. Meric-Bernstam of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Competition between tumor cells and immune cells for nutrients such as glutamine in the tumor microenvironment can create a metabolic checkpoint that induces local immune suppression. CB‐839 inhibits tumor glutamine consumption, thereby increasing glutamine availability to support T‐cell activity, she explained, noting that in preclinical models, CB‐839 increased intra‐tumoral glutamine and enhanced antitumor activity of PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors.
In the phase 1 dose escalation study, she and her colleagues evaluated the safety and efficacy of CB-839 in combination with the PD‐1 inhibitor nivolumab in patients with melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Phase 2 expansion cohorts include a melanoma rescue cohort of patients progressing on anti-PD-L1 therapy at study entry (22 patients), an NSCLC and RCC rescue cohort of patients who were progressing on anti-PD-L1 therapy at study entry or who had stable disease for 6 months or longer without a response (11 NSCLC and 11 RCC), an RCC cohort of patients with prior immunotherapy exposure and no response (10 patients), and an RCC cohort of patents who had no prior immunotherapy exposure (28 patients).
During dose escalation, patients received oral CB‐839 at 600 mg or 800 mg twice daily in combination with standard‐dose nivolumab. In the ongoing phase 2 expansion study, which continues to enroll, patients are receiving 800 mg of CB-839 twice daily with standard‐dose nivolumab, Dr. Meric-Bernstam said.
Patients in each of the cohorts were high risk and/or had intermediate or poor prognostic status at study entry. For example, 50% of patients in the melanoma rescue cohort had liver metastases, 77% had other visceral metastases, and 18% had brain metastases, and the majority of patients in the lung cancer/RCC cohort had visceral metastases. Most had progressive disease as their best response on their last line of immunotherapy.
Of 16 response-evaluable melanoma patients, 1 experienced a complete response, 2 had partial responses, and 4 had stable disease.
“So overall in this patient population that was progressing on a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor at enrollment, 19% had an objective response. The disease control rate in this group was 44%,” she said.
In evaluable patients in the lung cancer rescue cohort (6 patients), RCC rescue cohort (8 patients), and RCC prior exposure cohort (7 patients), disease control rates ranged from 57% to 75%, and in the immunotherapy-naive RCC cohort (19 patients), the partial response rate was 21%, and 53% had stable disease, so the overall disease control rate was 74%. Half of the patients in that group remain on study, she noted.
A closer look at the melanoma rescue cohort showed dramatic and rapid responses in two patients who each achieved a partial response in about 8 weeks with response durations of 3.7 months and 5.4 months, respectively. Additionally, pre-treatment biopsies in this cohort showed an elevated T-cell inflamed signature associated with clinical benefit from the addition of CB-839, and in one patient who had both a pretreatment and on-treatment biopsy that was evaluable, the latter showed an increase in T-cell inflamed signature and T-cell effector genes.
In all cohorts, the combination therapy was generally well tolerated. A maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Dose-limiting toxicity – a grade 3 alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increase – occurred in one patient on the 800-mg dose. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events were fatigue, nausea, photophobia, rash, and elevated ALT, she said, noting that two patients discontinued for treatment-related adverse events (one for a grade 3 rash and one for grade 2 pneumonitis).
“Overall there appeared to be no apparent increase in immune-related adverse events, either in rate or severity, compared with [nivolumab] monotherapy,” she said.
The combination of CB-839 and nivolumab was well tolerated, and in some patients – as seen in the melanoma cohort – adding CB-839 to checkpoint blockade can overcome checkpoint blockade resistance, Dr. Meric-Bernstam concluded, noting that the disease control rates seen in the majority of lung cancer and RCC patients who were progressing on checkpoint blockade is encouraging, as is the objective response rate seen thus far in the RCC therapy-naive patients, and the stable and deep responses seen in the melanoma rescue cohort.
“Based on our encouraging signal in the melanoma rescue cohort, this [cohort] has been expanded,” she said.
Calithera Biosciences sponsored the study. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided nivolumab for the study. Dr. Meric-Bernstam has received grant or research support from Calithera Biosciences and many other companies. She also reported being a paid consultant for several companies and serving on an advisory committee or review panel, or as a board member for multiple companies.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Combination treatment with the first-in-class glutaminase inhibitor CB-839 and nivolumab is well-tolerated and shows clinical activity in patients with advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, or non-small cell lung cancer, including anti-PD-1/PD-L1 refractory patients, according to initial results from a phase 1/2 study.
Responses in melanoma patients who were progressing on nivolumab at study entry and who were refractory to multiple prior immunotherapy regimens are particularly notable, as they highlight the potential for CB-839, when added to nivolumab (Opdivo), to help overcome resistance to anti-PD-L1 therapy, Funda Meric‐Bernstam, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
CB‐839 is highly selective and targets tumor glutamine metabolism, said Dr. Meric-Bernstam of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Competition between tumor cells and immune cells for nutrients such as glutamine in the tumor microenvironment can create a metabolic checkpoint that induces local immune suppression. CB‐839 inhibits tumor glutamine consumption, thereby increasing glutamine availability to support T‐cell activity, she explained, noting that in preclinical models, CB‐839 increased intra‐tumoral glutamine and enhanced antitumor activity of PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors.
In the phase 1 dose escalation study, she and her colleagues evaluated the safety and efficacy of CB-839 in combination with the PD‐1 inhibitor nivolumab in patients with melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Phase 2 expansion cohorts include a melanoma rescue cohort of patients progressing on anti-PD-L1 therapy at study entry (22 patients), an NSCLC and RCC rescue cohort of patients who were progressing on anti-PD-L1 therapy at study entry or who had stable disease for 6 months or longer without a response (11 NSCLC and 11 RCC), an RCC cohort of patients with prior immunotherapy exposure and no response (10 patients), and an RCC cohort of patents who had no prior immunotherapy exposure (28 patients).
During dose escalation, patients received oral CB‐839 at 600 mg or 800 mg twice daily in combination with standard‐dose nivolumab. In the ongoing phase 2 expansion study, which continues to enroll, patients are receiving 800 mg of CB-839 twice daily with standard‐dose nivolumab, Dr. Meric-Bernstam said.
Patients in each of the cohorts were high risk and/or had intermediate or poor prognostic status at study entry. For example, 50% of patients in the melanoma rescue cohort had liver metastases, 77% had other visceral metastases, and 18% had brain metastases, and the majority of patients in the lung cancer/RCC cohort had visceral metastases. Most had progressive disease as their best response on their last line of immunotherapy.
Of 16 response-evaluable melanoma patients, 1 experienced a complete response, 2 had partial responses, and 4 had stable disease.
“So overall in this patient population that was progressing on a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor at enrollment, 19% had an objective response. The disease control rate in this group was 44%,” she said.
In evaluable patients in the lung cancer rescue cohort (6 patients), RCC rescue cohort (8 patients), and RCC prior exposure cohort (7 patients), disease control rates ranged from 57% to 75%, and in the immunotherapy-naive RCC cohort (19 patients), the partial response rate was 21%, and 53% had stable disease, so the overall disease control rate was 74%. Half of the patients in that group remain on study, she noted.
A closer look at the melanoma rescue cohort showed dramatic and rapid responses in two patients who each achieved a partial response in about 8 weeks with response durations of 3.7 months and 5.4 months, respectively. Additionally, pre-treatment biopsies in this cohort showed an elevated T-cell inflamed signature associated with clinical benefit from the addition of CB-839, and in one patient who had both a pretreatment and on-treatment biopsy that was evaluable, the latter showed an increase in T-cell inflamed signature and T-cell effector genes.
In all cohorts, the combination therapy was generally well tolerated. A maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Dose-limiting toxicity – a grade 3 alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increase – occurred in one patient on the 800-mg dose. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events were fatigue, nausea, photophobia, rash, and elevated ALT, she said, noting that two patients discontinued for treatment-related adverse events (one for a grade 3 rash and one for grade 2 pneumonitis).
“Overall there appeared to be no apparent increase in immune-related adverse events, either in rate or severity, compared with [nivolumab] monotherapy,” she said.
The combination of CB-839 and nivolumab was well tolerated, and in some patients – as seen in the melanoma cohort – adding CB-839 to checkpoint blockade can overcome checkpoint blockade resistance, Dr. Meric-Bernstam concluded, noting that the disease control rates seen in the majority of lung cancer and RCC patients who were progressing on checkpoint blockade is encouraging, as is the objective response rate seen thus far in the RCC therapy-naive patients, and the stable and deep responses seen in the melanoma rescue cohort.
“Based on our encouraging signal in the melanoma rescue cohort, this [cohort] has been expanded,” she said.
Calithera Biosciences sponsored the study. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided nivolumab for the study. Dr. Meric-Bernstam has received grant or research support from Calithera Biosciences and many other companies. She also reported being a paid consultant for several companies and serving on an advisory committee or review panel, or as a board member for multiple companies.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Combination treatment with the first-in-class glutaminase inhibitor CB-839 and nivolumab is well-tolerated and shows clinical activity in patients with advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, or non-small cell lung cancer, including anti-PD-1/PD-L1 refractory patients, according to initial results from a phase 1/2 study.
Responses in melanoma patients who were progressing on nivolumab at study entry and who were refractory to multiple prior immunotherapy regimens are particularly notable, as they highlight the potential for CB-839, when added to nivolumab (Opdivo), to help overcome resistance to anti-PD-L1 therapy, Funda Meric‐Bernstam, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
CB‐839 is highly selective and targets tumor glutamine metabolism, said Dr. Meric-Bernstam of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Competition between tumor cells and immune cells for nutrients such as glutamine in the tumor microenvironment can create a metabolic checkpoint that induces local immune suppression. CB‐839 inhibits tumor glutamine consumption, thereby increasing glutamine availability to support T‐cell activity, she explained, noting that in preclinical models, CB‐839 increased intra‐tumoral glutamine and enhanced antitumor activity of PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors.
In the phase 1 dose escalation study, she and her colleagues evaluated the safety and efficacy of CB-839 in combination with the PD‐1 inhibitor nivolumab in patients with melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Phase 2 expansion cohorts include a melanoma rescue cohort of patients progressing on anti-PD-L1 therapy at study entry (22 patients), an NSCLC and RCC rescue cohort of patients who were progressing on anti-PD-L1 therapy at study entry or who had stable disease for 6 months or longer without a response (11 NSCLC and 11 RCC), an RCC cohort of patients with prior immunotherapy exposure and no response (10 patients), and an RCC cohort of patents who had no prior immunotherapy exposure (28 patients).
During dose escalation, patients received oral CB‐839 at 600 mg or 800 mg twice daily in combination with standard‐dose nivolumab. In the ongoing phase 2 expansion study, which continues to enroll, patients are receiving 800 mg of CB-839 twice daily with standard‐dose nivolumab, Dr. Meric-Bernstam said.
Patients in each of the cohorts were high risk and/or had intermediate or poor prognostic status at study entry. For example, 50% of patients in the melanoma rescue cohort had liver metastases, 77% had other visceral metastases, and 18% had brain metastases, and the majority of patients in the lung cancer/RCC cohort had visceral metastases. Most had progressive disease as their best response on their last line of immunotherapy.
Of 16 response-evaluable melanoma patients, 1 experienced a complete response, 2 had partial responses, and 4 had stable disease.
“So overall in this patient population that was progressing on a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor at enrollment, 19% had an objective response. The disease control rate in this group was 44%,” she said.
In evaluable patients in the lung cancer rescue cohort (6 patients), RCC rescue cohort (8 patients), and RCC prior exposure cohort (7 patients), disease control rates ranged from 57% to 75%, and in the immunotherapy-naive RCC cohort (19 patients), the partial response rate was 21%, and 53% had stable disease, so the overall disease control rate was 74%. Half of the patients in that group remain on study, she noted.
A closer look at the melanoma rescue cohort showed dramatic and rapid responses in two patients who each achieved a partial response in about 8 weeks with response durations of 3.7 months and 5.4 months, respectively. Additionally, pre-treatment biopsies in this cohort showed an elevated T-cell inflamed signature associated with clinical benefit from the addition of CB-839, and in one patient who had both a pretreatment and on-treatment biopsy that was evaluable, the latter showed an increase in T-cell inflamed signature and T-cell effector genes.
In all cohorts, the combination therapy was generally well tolerated. A maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Dose-limiting toxicity – a grade 3 alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increase – occurred in one patient on the 800-mg dose. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events were fatigue, nausea, photophobia, rash, and elevated ALT, she said, noting that two patients discontinued for treatment-related adverse events (one for a grade 3 rash and one for grade 2 pneumonitis).
“Overall there appeared to be no apparent increase in immune-related adverse events, either in rate or severity, compared with [nivolumab] monotherapy,” she said.
The combination of CB-839 and nivolumab was well tolerated, and in some patients – as seen in the melanoma cohort – adding CB-839 to checkpoint blockade can overcome checkpoint blockade resistance, Dr. Meric-Bernstam concluded, noting that the disease control rates seen in the majority of lung cancer and RCC patients who were progressing on checkpoint blockade is encouraging, as is the objective response rate seen thus far in the RCC therapy-naive patients, and the stable and deep responses seen in the melanoma rescue cohort.
“Based on our encouraging signal in the melanoma rescue cohort, this [cohort] has been expanded,” she said.
Calithera Biosciences sponsored the study. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided nivolumab for the study. Dr. Meric-Bernstam has received grant or research support from Calithera Biosciences and many other companies. She also reported being a paid consultant for several companies and serving on an advisory committee or review panel, or as a board member for multiple companies.
AT SITC 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The objective response rate in advanced melanoma patients refractory to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy was 19%.
Data source: A phase 1/2 study of 82 patients.
Disclosures: Calithera Biosciences sponsored the study. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided nivolumab for the study. Dr. Meric-Bernstam has received grant or research support from Calithera Biosciences and many other companies. She also reported being a paid consultant for several companies and serving on an advisory committee or review panel or as a board member for multiple companies.
FDA approves sunitinib malate as adjuvant treatment for RCC
The Food and Drug Administration has approved sunitinib malate for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following nephrectomy.
“This is the first adjuvant treatment approved for patients with renal cell carcinoma, which is significant because patients with this disease who have a nephrectomy are often at high risk of the cancer returning,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a written statement.
Approval for adjuvant treatment of RCC was based on median disease-free survival of 6.8 years for patients receiving sunitinib malate, compared with 5.6 years for patients receiving placebo in S-TRAC, a phase III trial of 615 patients with high risk of recurrent RCC following nephrectomy. In the trial, presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in 2016 and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either 50 mg sunitinib malate once daily, 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off, or placebo. Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data analysis.
The most common adverse reactions to sunitinib in the trial were fatigue/asthenia, diarrhea, mucositis/stomatitis, nausea, decreased appetite/anorexia, vomiting, abdominal pain, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, bleeding events, dysgeusia, dyspepsia, and thrombocytopenia.
Severe side effects included hepatotoxicity, low left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial ischemia/infarction, prolonged QT intervals/torsade de pointes, hypertension, hemorrhagic events, tumor lysis syndrome, thrombotic microangiopathy (including thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and hemolytic uremic syndrome), proteinuria, thyroid dysfunction, hypoglycemia, osteonecrosis, and wound-healing complications. A boxed warning alerts health care professionals and patients about the risk of hepatoxicity, which may result in liver failure or death.
Sunitinib malate is marketed as Sutent by Pfizer. The recommended dose for the adjuvant treatment of RCC is 50 mg orally once daily, with or without food, 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off for nine 6-week cycles.
Full prescribing information is available here.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved sunitinib malate for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following nephrectomy.
“This is the first adjuvant treatment approved for patients with renal cell carcinoma, which is significant because patients with this disease who have a nephrectomy are often at high risk of the cancer returning,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a written statement.
Approval for adjuvant treatment of RCC was based on median disease-free survival of 6.8 years for patients receiving sunitinib malate, compared with 5.6 years for patients receiving placebo in S-TRAC, a phase III trial of 615 patients with high risk of recurrent RCC following nephrectomy. In the trial, presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in 2016 and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either 50 mg sunitinib malate once daily, 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off, or placebo. Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data analysis.
The most common adverse reactions to sunitinib in the trial were fatigue/asthenia, diarrhea, mucositis/stomatitis, nausea, decreased appetite/anorexia, vomiting, abdominal pain, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, bleeding events, dysgeusia, dyspepsia, and thrombocytopenia.
Severe side effects included hepatotoxicity, low left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial ischemia/infarction, prolonged QT intervals/torsade de pointes, hypertension, hemorrhagic events, tumor lysis syndrome, thrombotic microangiopathy (including thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and hemolytic uremic syndrome), proteinuria, thyroid dysfunction, hypoglycemia, osteonecrosis, and wound-healing complications. A boxed warning alerts health care professionals and patients about the risk of hepatoxicity, which may result in liver failure or death.
Sunitinib malate is marketed as Sutent by Pfizer. The recommended dose for the adjuvant treatment of RCC is 50 mg orally once daily, with or without food, 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off for nine 6-week cycles.
Full prescribing information is available here.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved sunitinib malate for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following nephrectomy.
“This is the first adjuvant treatment approved for patients with renal cell carcinoma, which is significant because patients with this disease who have a nephrectomy are often at high risk of the cancer returning,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a written statement.
Approval for adjuvant treatment of RCC was based on median disease-free survival of 6.8 years for patients receiving sunitinib malate, compared with 5.6 years for patients receiving placebo in S-TRAC, a phase III trial of 615 patients with high risk of recurrent RCC following nephrectomy. In the trial, presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in 2016 and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either 50 mg sunitinib malate once daily, 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off, or placebo. Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data analysis.
The most common adverse reactions to sunitinib in the trial were fatigue/asthenia, diarrhea, mucositis/stomatitis, nausea, decreased appetite/anorexia, vomiting, abdominal pain, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, bleeding events, dysgeusia, dyspepsia, and thrombocytopenia.
Severe side effects included hepatotoxicity, low left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial ischemia/infarction, prolonged QT intervals/torsade de pointes, hypertension, hemorrhagic events, tumor lysis syndrome, thrombotic microangiopathy (including thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and hemolytic uremic syndrome), proteinuria, thyroid dysfunction, hypoglycemia, osteonecrosis, and wound-healing complications. A boxed warning alerts health care professionals and patients about the risk of hepatoxicity, which may result in liver failure or death.
Sunitinib malate is marketed as Sutent by Pfizer. The recommended dose for the adjuvant treatment of RCC is 50 mg orally once daily, with or without food, 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off for nine 6-week cycles.
Full prescribing information is available here.
Cancer patients with TKI-induced hypothyroidism had better survival rates
VICTORIA, B.C. – When it comes to the adverse effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), hypothyroidism appears to have a bright side, according to a retrospective cohort study among patients with nonthyroid cancers.
While taking one of these targeted agents, roughly a quarter of patients became overtly hypothyroid, an adverse effect that appears to be due in part to immune destruction. Risk was higher for women and earlier in therapy.
Relative to counterparts who remained euthyroid, overtly hypothyroid patients were 44% less likely to die after other factors were taken into account.
Hypothyroidism may reflect changes in immune activation, Dr. Angell proposed. “Additional studies may be helpful, both prospectively looking at the clinical importance of this finding [of survival benefit], and also potentially mechanistically, to understand the relationship between hypothyroidism and survival in these patients.”
“This is an innovative study that looked at an interesting clinical question,” observed session cochair Angela M. Leung, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and an endocrinologist at both UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System.
Thyroid dysfunction is a well-known, common side effect of TKI therapy, Dr. Angell noted. “The possible mechanisms that have been suggested for this are direct toxicity on the thyroid gland, destructive thyroiditis, increased thyroid hormone clearance, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition, among others.”
Some previous research has suggested a possible survival benefit of TKI-induced hypothyroidism. But “there are limitations in our understanding of hypothyroidism in this setting, including the timing of onset, what risk factors there may be, and the effect of additional clinical variables on the survival effect seen,” Dr. Angell pointed out.
He and his coinvestigators studied 538 adult patients with nonthyroid cancers (mostly stage III or IV) who received a first TKI during 2000-2013 and were followed up through 2017. They excluded those who had preexisting thyroid disease or were on thyroid-related medications.
During TKI therapy, 26.7% of patients developed overt hypothyroidism, and another 13.2% developed subclinical hypothyroidism.
“For a given drug, patients were less likely to develop hypothyroidism when they were given it subsequent to another TKI, as opposed to it being the initial TKI,” Dr. Angell reported. But median time to onset of hypothyroidism was about 2.5 months, regardless.
Cumulative months of all TKI exposure during cancer treatment were not significantly associated with development of hypothyroidism.
In a multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to develop hypothyroidism if they were female (odds ratio, 1.99) and significantly less likely if they had a longer total time on treatment (OR, 0.98) or received a non-TKI VEGF inhibitor (OR, 0.43). Age, race, and cumulative TKI exposure did not influence the outcome.
In a second multivariate analysis, patients’ risk of death was significantly lower if they developed overt hypothyroidism (hazard ratio, 0.56; P less than .0001), but not if they developed subclinical hypothyroidism (HR, 0.79; P = .1655).
Treatment of hypothyroidism did not appear to influence survival, according to Dr. Angell. However, “there wasn’t a specific decision on who was treated, how they were treated, [or] when they were treated,” he said. “So, it is difficult within this cohort to look specifically at which cutoff would be ideal” for initiating treatment.
Similarly, thyroid function testing was not standardized in this retrospectively identified cohort, so it was not possible to determine how long patients were hypothyroid and whether that had an impact, according to Dr. Angell.
Dr. Angell had no relevant conflicts of interest.
VICTORIA, B.C. – When it comes to the adverse effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), hypothyroidism appears to have a bright side, according to a retrospective cohort study among patients with nonthyroid cancers.
While taking one of these targeted agents, roughly a quarter of patients became overtly hypothyroid, an adverse effect that appears to be due in part to immune destruction. Risk was higher for women and earlier in therapy.
Relative to counterparts who remained euthyroid, overtly hypothyroid patients were 44% less likely to die after other factors were taken into account.
Hypothyroidism may reflect changes in immune activation, Dr. Angell proposed. “Additional studies may be helpful, both prospectively looking at the clinical importance of this finding [of survival benefit], and also potentially mechanistically, to understand the relationship between hypothyroidism and survival in these patients.”
“This is an innovative study that looked at an interesting clinical question,” observed session cochair Angela M. Leung, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and an endocrinologist at both UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System.
Thyroid dysfunction is a well-known, common side effect of TKI therapy, Dr. Angell noted. “The possible mechanisms that have been suggested for this are direct toxicity on the thyroid gland, destructive thyroiditis, increased thyroid hormone clearance, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition, among others.”
Some previous research has suggested a possible survival benefit of TKI-induced hypothyroidism. But “there are limitations in our understanding of hypothyroidism in this setting, including the timing of onset, what risk factors there may be, and the effect of additional clinical variables on the survival effect seen,” Dr. Angell pointed out.
He and his coinvestigators studied 538 adult patients with nonthyroid cancers (mostly stage III or IV) who received a first TKI during 2000-2013 and were followed up through 2017. They excluded those who had preexisting thyroid disease or were on thyroid-related medications.
During TKI therapy, 26.7% of patients developed overt hypothyroidism, and another 13.2% developed subclinical hypothyroidism.
“For a given drug, patients were less likely to develop hypothyroidism when they were given it subsequent to another TKI, as opposed to it being the initial TKI,” Dr. Angell reported. But median time to onset of hypothyroidism was about 2.5 months, regardless.
Cumulative months of all TKI exposure during cancer treatment were not significantly associated with development of hypothyroidism.
In a multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to develop hypothyroidism if they were female (odds ratio, 1.99) and significantly less likely if they had a longer total time on treatment (OR, 0.98) or received a non-TKI VEGF inhibitor (OR, 0.43). Age, race, and cumulative TKI exposure did not influence the outcome.
In a second multivariate analysis, patients’ risk of death was significantly lower if they developed overt hypothyroidism (hazard ratio, 0.56; P less than .0001), but not if they developed subclinical hypothyroidism (HR, 0.79; P = .1655).
Treatment of hypothyroidism did not appear to influence survival, according to Dr. Angell. However, “there wasn’t a specific decision on who was treated, how they were treated, [or] when they were treated,” he said. “So, it is difficult within this cohort to look specifically at which cutoff would be ideal” for initiating treatment.
Similarly, thyroid function testing was not standardized in this retrospectively identified cohort, so it was not possible to determine how long patients were hypothyroid and whether that had an impact, according to Dr. Angell.
Dr. Angell had no relevant conflicts of interest.
VICTORIA, B.C. – When it comes to the adverse effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), hypothyroidism appears to have a bright side, according to a retrospective cohort study among patients with nonthyroid cancers.
While taking one of these targeted agents, roughly a quarter of patients became overtly hypothyroid, an adverse effect that appears to be due in part to immune destruction. Risk was higher for women and earlier in therapy.
Relative to counterparts who remained euthyroid, overtly hypothyroid patients were 44% less likely to die after other factors were taken into account.
Hypothyroidism may reflect changes in immune activation, Dr. Angell proposed. “Additional studies may be helpful, both prospectively looking at the clinical importance of this finding [of survival benefit], and also potentially mechanistically, to understand the relationship between hypothyroidism and survival in these patients.”
“This is an innovative study that looked at an interesting clinical question,” observed session cochair Angela M. Leung, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and an endocrinologist at both UCLA and the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System.
Thyroid dysfunction is a well-known, common side effect of TKI therapy, Dr. Angell noted. “The possible mechanisms that have been suggested for this are direct toxicity on the thyroid gland, destructive thyroiditis, increased thyroid hormone clearance, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition, among others.”
Some previous research has suggested a possible survival benefit of TKI-induced hypothyroidism. But “there are limitations in our understanding of hypothyroidism in this setting, including the timing of onset, what risk factors there may be, and the effect of additional clinical variables on the survival effect seen,” Dr. Angell pointed out.
He and his coinvestigators studied 538 adult patients with nonthyroid cancers (mostly stage III or IV) who received a first TKI during 2000-2013 and were followed up through 2017. They excluded those who had preexisting thyroid disease or were on thyroid-related medications.
During TKI therapy, 26.7% of patients developed overt hypothyroidism, and another 13.2% developed subclinical hypothyroidism.
“For a given drug, patients were less likely to develop hypothyroidism when they were given it subsequent to another TKI, as opposed to it being the initial TKI,” Dr. Angell reported. But median time to onset of hypothyroidism was about 2.5 months, regardless.
Cumulative months of all TKI exposure during cancer treatment were not significantly associated with development of hypothyroidism.
In a multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to develop hypothyroidism if they were female (odds ratio, 1.99) and significantly less likely if they had a longer total time on treatment (OR, 0.98) or received a non-TKI VEGF inhibitor (OR, 0.43). Age, race, and cumulative TKI exposure did not influence the outcome.
In a second multivariate analysis, patients’ risk of death was significantly lower if they developed overt hypothyroidism (hazard ratio, 0.56; P less than .0001), but not if they developed subclinical hypothyroidism (HR, 0.79; P = .1655).
Treatment of hypothyroidism did not appear to influence survival, according to Dr. Angell. However, “there wasn’t a specific decision on who was treated, how they were treated, [or] when they were treated,” he said. “So, it is difficult within this cohort to look specifically at which cutoff would be ideal” for initiating treatment.
Similarly, thyroid function testing was not standardized in this retrospectively identified cohort, so it was not possible to determine how long patients were hypothyroid and whether that had an impact, according to Dr. Angell.
Dr. Angell had no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT ATA 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Relative to peers who remained euthyroid, patients who developed overt hypothyroidism had a reduced risk of death (HR, 0.56; P less than .0001).
Data source: A retrospective cohort study of 538 adult patients with mainly advanced nonthyroid cancers treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor.
Disclosures: Dr. Angell had no relevant conflicts of interest.
CheckMate 214: Updated results for RCC focus on PD-L1 expression, QOL
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The benefits of combined treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) vs. the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib as demonstrated in intermediate- to poor-risk renal cell carcinoma patients in the CheckMate 214 trial were observed across baseline programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels, according to subgroup analyses from the open-label phase 3 trial.
However, those with PD-L1–positive tumors – defined as tumors with PD-L1 expression in 1% or more of cells – had improved outcomes, compared with those with PD-L1–negative tumors. This was true for all three co-primary endpoints of the study: overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, Robert J. Motzer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“For progression-free survival ... [there was] a strong signal in patients who were PD-L1 expression–positive, but not so in those with PD-L1–negative tumors,” he said (P = .003 and .9670, respectively). “In the overall survival endpoint ... patients benefited with longer survival with nivo/ipi, regardless of PD-L1 expression, but the relative benefit seemed higher in patients expressing PD-L1 (P less than .0001 and .0249, respectively).”
The primary efficacy results of CheckMate 214 were reported in September at the European Society of Medical Oncology. The study enrolled 1,096 patients with treatment-naive advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma with measurable disease and adequate performance status who were stratified by prognostic score and geographical region and randomly assigned to receive either 3 mg/kg nivolumab and 1 mg/kg ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses, then 3 mg/kg nivolumab monotherapy every other week, or 50 mg oral sunitinib once daily for 4 weeks in a 6-week cycle. Treatment continued until patients progressed or experienced unacceptable toxicity.
Most of the patients in the study (847 of 1,096) had intermediate- to poor-risk disease and most of those (about 70%) were PD-L1 negative.
Overall, the study met two of the primary endpoints, demonstrating superior overall survival and overall response rates with nivo/ipi vs. sunitinib in intermediate/poor-risk patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Motzer said.
In addition to presenting the subgroup data regarding outcomes across PD-L1 expression levels at the meeting, he also presented new data showing improved self-reported quality of life among patients treated with nivo/ipi vs. sunitinib. Quality of life was measured using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/ Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index 19 questionnaire, which “looks at questions particularly relevant to renal cell carcinoma patients,” he said.
The mean change in questionnaire scores from baseline was consistently better in the nivo/ipi arm. At 104 weeks the mean change was about +5 points with nivo/ipi vs. about –7 points with sunitinib.
“These results support the use of nivo/ipi as a new first-line standard of care option for patients with intermediate/poor-risk advanced [renal cell carcinoma],” he concluded.
CheckMate 214 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Motzer reported ownership interest in Armo Biosciences.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The benefits of combined treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) vs. the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib as demonstrated in intermediate- to poor-risk renal cell carcinoma patients in the CheckMate 214 trial were observed across baseline programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels, according to subgroup analyses from the open-label phase 3 trial.
However, those with PD-L1–positive tumors – defined as tumors with PD-L1 expression in 1% or more of cells – had improved outcomes, compared with those with PD-L1–negative tumors. This was true for all three co-primary endpoints of the study: overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, Robert J. Motzer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“For progression-free survival ... [there was] a strong signal in patients who were PD-L1 expression–positive, but not so in those with PD-L1–negative tumors,” he said (P = .003 and .9670, respectively). “In the overall survival endpoint ... patients benefited with longer survival with nivo/ipi, regardless of PD-L1 expression, but the relative benefit seemed higher in patients expressing PD-L1 (P less than .0001 and .0249, respectively).”
The primary efficacy results of CheckMate 214 were reported in September at the European Society of Medical Oncology. The study enrolled 1,096 patients with treatment-naive advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma with measurable disease and adequate performance status who were stratified by prognostic score and geographical region and randomly assigned to receive either 3 mg/kg nivolumab and 1 mg/kg ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses, then 3 mg/kg nivolumab monotherapy every other week, or 50 mg oral sunitinib once daily for 4 weeks in a 6-week cycle. Treatment continued until patients progressed or experienced unacceptable toxicity.
Most of the patients in the study (847 of 1,096) had intermediate- to poor-risk disease and most of those (about 70%) were PD-L1 negative.
Overall, the study met two of the primary endpoints, demonstrating superior overall survival and overall response rates with nivo/ipi vs. sunitinib in intermediate/poor-risk patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Motzer said.
In addition to presenting the subgroup data regarding outcomes across PD-L1 expression levels at the meeting, he also presented new data showing improved self-reported quality of life among patients treated with nivo/ipi vs. sunitinib. Quality of life was measured using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/ Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index 19 questionnaire, which “looks at questions particularly relevant to renal cell carcinoma patients,” he said.
The mean change in questionnaire scores from baseline was consistently better in the nivo/ipi arm. At 104 weeks the mean change was about +5 points with nivo/ipi vs. about –7 points with sunitinib.
“These results support the use of nivo/ipi as a new first-line standard of care option for patients with intermediate/poor-risk advanced [renal cell carcinoma],” he concluded.
CheckMate 214 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Motzer reported ownership interest in Armo Biosciences.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The benefits of combined treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) vs. the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib as demonstrated in intermediate- to poor-risk renal cell carcinoma patients in the CheckMate 214 trial were observed across baseline programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels, according to subgroup analyses from the open-label phase 3 trial.
However, those with PD-L1–positive tumors – defined as tumors with PD-L1 expression in 1% or more of cells – had improved outcomes, compared with those with PD-L1–negative tumors. This was true for all three co-primary endpoints of the study: overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, Robert J. Motzer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“For progression-free survival ... [there was] a strong signal in patients who were PD-L1 expression–positive, but not so in those with PD-L1–negative tumors,” he said (P = .003 and .9670, respectively). “In the overall survival endpoint ... patients benefited with longer survival with nivo/ipi, regardless of PD-L1 expression, but the relative benefit seemed higher in patients expressing PD-L1 (P less than .0001 and .0249, respectively).”
The primary efficacy results of CheckMate 214 were reported in September at the European Society of Medical Oncology. The study enrolled 1,096 patients with treatment-naive advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma with measurable disease and adequate performance status who were stratified by prognostic score and geographical region and randomly assigned to receive either 3 mg/kg nivolumab and 1 mg/kg ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses, then 3 mg/kg nivolumab monotherapy every other week, or 50 mg oral sunitinib once daily for 4 weeks in a 6-week cycle. Treatment continued until patients progressed or experienced unacceptable toxicity.
Most of the patients in the study (847 of 1,096) had intermediate- to poor-risk disease and most of those (about 70%) were PD-L1 negative.
Overall, the study met two of the primary endpoints, demonstrating superior overall survival and overall response rates with nivo/ipi vs. sunitinib in intermediate/poor-risk patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Motzer said.
In addition to presenting the subgroup data regarding outcomes across PD-L1 expression levels at the meeting, he also presented new data showing improved self-reported quality of life among patients treated with nivo/ipi vs. sunitinib. Quality of life was measured using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/ Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index 19 questionnaire, which “looks at questions particularly relevant to renal cell carcinoma patients,” he said.
The mean change in questionnaire scores from baseline was consistently better in the nivo/ipi arm. At 104 weeks the mean change was about +5 points with nivo/ipi vs. about –7 points with sunitinib.
“These results support the use of nivo/ipi as a new first-line standard of care option for patients with intermediate/poor-risk advanced [renal cell carcinoma],” he concluded.
CheckMate 214 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Motzer reported ownership interest in Armo Biosciences.
AT SITC 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Overall response outcomes favored nivo/ipi vs. sunitinib for both PD-L1–positive tumors and PD-L1–negative tumors, but more so for PD-L1–positive tumors (P less than .0001 and P = .252, respectively).
Data source: The 1,096-patient open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial.
Disclosures: CheckMate 214 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.
Perioperative blood transfusion linked to worse outcomes in renal cell carcinoma
Perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) is associated with poorer outcomes among patients who underwent nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to a retrospective review of 1,159 patients.
Using multivariate analysis and controlling for potential confounders such as clinical and pathologic features, receipt of PBT was associated with significantly increased risk of tumor recurrence (HR = 2, P = .02, metastatic progression (HR = 2.5, P = .007), and death from RCC (HR = 2.5, P = .02).
Previous research suggests that PBT may be associated with worse oncological outcomes following cancer surgery, although the data have been inconsistent. In this study, Dr. Abu-Ghanem and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that examined effect of PBT on the prognosis of 1,159 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy for RCC, between 1987 to 2013.
Within this cohort, 198 patients (17.1%) received a PBT, and the median follow-up was 63.2 months. Receipt of PBT was associated with a symptomatic presentation (P less than .001) and a higher rate of adverse pathological features that included larger tumors (P less than .001), high nuclear grade (P less than .001), presence of tumor necrosis (P less than .001), and capsular invasion (P less than .001). Patients who received PBT were also more likely to have undergone an open surgical procedure (P less than .05).
The authors found that receipt of a PBT was associated with significantly worse 5-year relapse free survival (81% vs. 92%, P less than .01) as well as metastatic free survival (79% vs. 93%, P less than .001). Receiving a PBT was also associated with a worse 5-year CSS (85% vs. 95%, P less than .001) and OS (73% vs. 81%, P less than .001) versus those who were not transfused.
A subgroup analysis showed that patients who underwent a partial nephrectomy also had worse outcomes if they received a PBT as compared to those who didn’t; 5-year relapse free survival was 81% vs. 90% (P = .014), CSS was 89% vs. 97% (P = .019) and OS was 82% vs. 92%, (P = .016).
There were no funding sources or author disclosures listed in the article.
Perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) is associated with poorer outcomes among patients who underwent nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to a retrospective review of 1,159 patients.
Using multivariate analysis and controlling for potential confounders such as clinical and pathologic features, receipt of PBT was associated with significantly increased risk of tumor recurrence (HR = 2, P = .02, metastatic progression (HR = 2.5, P = .007), and death from RCC (HR = 2.5, P = .02).
Previous research suggests that PBT may be associated with worse oncological outcomes following cancer surgery, although the data have been inconsistent. In this study, Dr. Abu-Ghanem and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that examined effect of PBT on the prognosis of 1,159 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy for RCC, between 1987 to 2013.
Within this cohort, 198 patients (17.1%) received a PBT, and the median follow-up was 63.2 months. Receipt of PBT was associated with a symptomatic presentation (P less than .001) and a higher rate of adverse pathological features that included larger tumors (P less than .001), high nuclear grade (P less than .001), presence of tumor necrosis (P less than .001), and capsular invasion (P less than .001). Patients who received PBT were also more likely to have undergone an open surgical procedure (P less than .05).
The authors found that receipt of a PBT was associated with significantly worse 5-year relapse free survival (81% vs. 92%, P less than .01) as well as metastatic free survival (79% vs. 93%, P less than .001). Receiving a PBT was also associated with a worse 5-year CSS (85% vs. 95%, P less than .001) and OS (73% vs. 81%, P less than .001) versus those who were not transfused.
A subgroup analysis showed that patients who underwent a partial nephrectomy also had worse outcomes if they received a PBT as compared to those who didn’t; 5-year relapse free survival was 81% vs. 90% (P = .014), CSS was 89% vs. 97% (P = .019) and OS was 82% vs. 92%, (P = .016).
There were no funding sources or author disclosures listed in the article.
Perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) is associated with poorer outcomes among patients who underwent nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to a retrospective review of 1,159 patients.
Using multivariate analysis and controlling for potential confounders such as clinical and pathologic features, receipt of PBT was associated with significantly increased risk of tumor recurrence (HR = 2, P = .02, metastatic progression (HR = 2.5, P = .007), and death from RCC (HR = 2.5, P = .02).
Previous research suggests that PBT may be associated with worse oncological outcomes following cancer surgery, although the data have been inconsistent. In this study, Dr. Abu-Ghanem and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that examined effect of PBT on the prognosis of 1,159 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy for RCC, between 1987 to 2013.
Within this cohort, 198 patients (17.1%) received a PBT, and the median follow-up was 63.2 months. Receipt of PBT was associated with a symptomatic presentation (P less than .001) and a higher rate of adverse pathological features that included larger tumors (P less than .001), high nuclear grade (P less than .001), presence of tumor necrosis (P less than .001), and capsular invasion (P less than .001). Patients who received PBT were also more likely to have undergone an open surgical procedure (P less than .05).
The authors found that receipt of a PBT was associated with significantly worse 5-year relapse free survival (81% vs. 92%, P less than .01) as well as metastatic free survival (79% vs. 93%, P less than .001). Receiving a PBT was also associated with a worse 5-year CSS (85% vs. 95%, P less than .001) and OS (73% vs. 81%, P less than .001) versus those who were not transfused.
A subgroup analysis showed that patients who underwent a partial nephrectomy also had worse outcomes if they received a PBT as compared to those who didn’t; 5-year relapse free survival was 81% vs. 90% (P = .014), CSS was 89% vs. 97% (P = .019) and OS was 82% vs. 92%, (P = .016).
There were no funding sources or author disclosures listed in the article.
FROM UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: Major finding: Receipt of PBT was associated with significantly increased risk of tumor recurrence (HR = 2, P = .02, metastatic progression (HR = 2.5, P = .007), and death from RCC (HR = 2.5, P = .02).
Data source: Retrospective study that included 1,159 patients with RCC who underwent nephrectomy and evaluated outcomes in those who received a PBT versus those who did not.
Disclosures: There are no funding sources or author disclosures listed.
High EZH2 expression a marker for death risk in RCC
In patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), tumor levels of the oncogenic protein EZH2 (enhancer of zeste homolog 2) were predictive of risk of RCC-specific death, including in patients considered at low or intermediate risk by a standard prognostic model.
Among nearly 2,000 tumors from patients with RCC in three different cohorts, the risks of both all-cause mortality and RCC-specific death were approximately double for patients with tumors that had high expression of EZH2 compared with those whose tumors expressed only low levels, reported Thai Huu Ho, MD, PhD, from the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, and colleagues.
Among patients deemed to be at low risk according to the Mayo Clinic stage, size, grade, and necrosis (SSIGN) score, high levels of EZH2 were associated with a sixfold increase in risk of death, the investigators wrote (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.3238).
“With the increasing incidence of small RCC tumors detected by cross-sectional imaging, our study emphasizes the clinical utility of a biomarker that is compatible with a single FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] slide that accurately predicts risk of RCC death beyond existing clinicopathologic models” they wrote.
EZH2 is a chromatin remodeler, a member of a family of proteins that are involved in epigenetic gene silencing. Although previous studies have explored potential associations between EZH2 expression and RCC outcomes, results have been conflicting, Dr. Ho and associates noted.
In hopes of getting a more definitive picture of the potential role of EZH2 as a prognostic biomarker for RCC, the investigators looked at the association between EZH2 expression and survival in tumors from 532 patients in the Cancer Genome Atlas (CGA) cohort, 122 patients from a University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (Dallas) cohort, and from 1,338 patients in a Mayo Clinic cohort.
In a model adjusted for age and SSIGN score, patients in the CGA cohort whose tumors had high levels of EZH2 expression had a hazard ratio (HR) for worse overall survival of 1.54 (P less than .028) compared with patients with low expression. Respective HRs for overall survival in the UT Southwestern and Mayo Cohorts were 2.16 (P = .034) and 1.43 (P = .00026).
When the researchers looked at RCC-specific survival in patients in the Mayo cohort, they found that those with the highest levels of EZH2 expression had a twofold risk for death vs. those with the lowest levels (HR 1.97, P less than .001).
They also found that patients with a low-risk SSIGN score who had high levels of EZH2 protein expression had an HR for RCC-specific death of 6.14, and that patients with intermediate-risk SSIGN scores has an HR for RCC-related death of 2.12 (P less than .001 for both comparisons).
The investigators noted that EZH2 enzymatic activity in RCC could potentially be targeted by EZH2 inhibitors such as tazemetostat.
“Further studies are required to determine how to better incorporate molecular biomarkers with prognostic information into surveillance guidelines and adjuvant clinical trials,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic, Gerstner Family Career Development Award, National Cancer Institute, and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. Dr. Ho and seven coauthors reported no relationships to disclose. The remaining investigators reported relationships with various companies.
In patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), tumor levels of the oncogenic protein EZH2 (enhancer of zeste homolog 2) were predictive of risk of RCC-specific death, including in patients considered at low or intermediate risk by a standard prognostic model.
Among nearly 2,000 tumors from patients with RCC in three different cohorts, the risks of both all-cause mortality and RCC-specific death were approximately double for patients with tumors that had high expression of EZH2 compared with those whose tumors expressed only low levels, reported Thai Huu Ho, MD, PhD, from the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, and colleagues.
Among patients deemed to be at low risk according to the Mayo Clinic stage, size, grade, and necrosis (SSIGN) score, high levels of EZH2 were associated with a sixfold increase in risk of death, the investigators wrote (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.3238).
“With the increasing incidence of small RCC tumors detected by cross-sectional imaging, our study emphasizes the clinical utility of a biomarker that is compatible with a single FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] slide that accurately predicts risk of RCC death beyond existing clinicopathologic models” they wrote.
EZH2 is a chromatin remodeler, a member of a family of proteins that are involved in epigenetic gene silencing. Although previous studies have explored potential associations between EZH2 expression and RCC outcomes, results have been conflicting, Dr. Ho and associates noted.
In hopes of getting a more definitive picture of the potential role of EZH2 as a prognostic biomarker for RCC, the investigators looked at the association between EZH2 expression and survival in tumors from 532 patients in the Cancer Genome Atlas (CGA) cohort, 122 patients from a University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (Dallas) cohort, and from 1,338 patients in a Mayo Clinic cohort.
In a model adjusted for age and SSIGN score, patients in the CGA cohort whose tumors had high levels of EZH2 expression had a hazard ratio (HR) for worse overall survival of 1.54 (P less than .028) compared with patients with low expression. Respective HRs for overall survival in the UT Southwestern and Mayo Cohorts were 2.16 (P = .034) and 1.43 (P = .00026).
When the researchers looked at RCC-specific survival in patients in the Mayo cohort, they found that those with the highest levels of EZH2 expression had a twofold risk for death vs. those with the lowest levels (HR 1.97, P less than .001).
They also found that patients with a low-risk SSIGN score who had high levels of EZH2 protein expression had an HR for RCC-specific death of 6.14, and that patients with intermediate-risk SSIGN scores has an HR for RCC-related death of 2.12 (P less than .001 for both comparisons).
The investigators noted that EZH2 enzymatic activity in RCC could potentially be targeted by EZH2 inhibitors such as tazemetostat.
“Further studies are required to determine how to better incorporate molecular biomarkers with prognostic information into surveillance guidelines and adjuvant clinical trials,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic, Gerstner Family Career Development Award, National Cancer Institute, and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. Dr. Ho and seven coauthors reported no relationships to disclose. The remaining investigators reported relationships with various companies.
In patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), tumor levels of the oncogenic protein EZH2 (enhancer of zeste homolog 2) were predictive of risk of RCC-specific death, including in patients considered at low or intermediate risk by a standard prognostic model.
Among nearly 2,000 tumors from patients with RCC in three different cohorts, the risks of both all-cause mortality and RCC-specific death were approximately double for patients with tumors that had high expression of EZH2 compared with those whose tumors expressed only low levels, reported Thai Huu Ho, MD, PhD, from the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, and colleagues.
Among patients deemed to be at low risk according to the Mayo Clinic stage, size, grade, and necrosis (SSIGN) score, high levels of EZH2 were associated with a sixfold increase in risk of death, the investigators wrote (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.3238).
“With the increasing incidence of small RCC tumors detected by cross-sectional imaging, our study emphasizes the clinical utility of a biomarker that is compatible with a single FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] slide that accurately predicts risk of RCC death beyond existing clinicopathologic models” they wrote.
EZH2 is a chromatin remodeler, a member of a family of proteins that are involved in epigenetic gene silencing. Although previous studies have explored potential associations between EZH2 expression and RCC outcomes, results have been conflicting, Dr. Ho and associates noted.
In hopes of getting a more definitive picture of the potential role of EZH2 as a prognostic biomarker for RCC, the investigators looked at the association between EZH2 expression and survival in tumors from 532 patients in the Cancer Genome Atlas (CGA) cohort, 122 patients from a University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (Dallas) cohort, and from 1,338 patients in a Mayo Clinic cohort.
In a model adjusted for age and SSIGN score, patients in the CGA cohort whose tumors had high levels of EZH2 expression had a hazard ratio (HR) for worse overall survival of 1.54 (P less than .028) compared with patients with low expression. Respective HRs for overall survival in the UT Southwestern and Mayo Cohorts were 2.16 (P = .034) and 1.43 (P = .00026).
When the researchers looked at RCC-specific survival in patients in the Mayo cohort, they found that those with the highest levels of EZH2 expression had a twofold risk for death vs. those with the lowest levels (HR 1.97, P less than .001).
They also found that patients with a low-risk SSIGN score who had high levels of EZH2 protein expression had an HR for RCC-specific death of 6.14, and that patients with intermediate-risk SSIGN scores has an HR for RCC-related death of 2.12 (P less than .001 for both comparisons).
The investigators noted that EZH2 enzymatic activity in RCC could potentially be targeted by EZH2 inhibitors such as tazemetostat.
“Further studies are required to determine how to better incorporate molecular biomarkers with prognostic information into surveillance guidelines and adjuvant clinical trials,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic, Gerstner Family Career Development Award, National Cancer Institute, and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. Dr. Ho and seven coauthors reported no relationships to disclose. The remaining investigators reported relationships with various companies.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: High levels of EZH2 were associated with worse survival of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
Major finding: Patients with RCC who had high levels of EZH2 expression in tumors had about a 1.5-fold risk for all-cause mortality, and twofold risk for RCC-specific death.
Data source: Analysis of EZH2 gene and protein expression in tumors from 1,192 patients with RCC in three cohorts.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic, Gerstner Family Career Development Award National Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. Dr. Ho and seven coauthors reported no relationships to disclose. The remaining investigators reported relationships with various companies.