Renal Cell Carcinoma

COPENHAGEN – For patients with previously untreated intermediate- or poor-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC), cabozantanib offers a progression-free survival benefit better than that seen with sunitinib, the current standard of care, reported investigators in the phase II CABOSUN trial.

After a median follow-up of 20.8 months, progression-free survival (PFS) for patients assigned to cabozantinib (Canbometyx) the primary endpoint, was a median 8.2 months, compared with 5.6 months for patients assigned to sunitinib, reported Toni K. Choueiri, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Trial details

In the CABOSUN trial, 157 treatment-naive patients with clear-cell RCC with measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 and intermediate- or poor-risk disease according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC) criteria were randomly assigned to receive either oral cabaozantinib 60 mg daily for 6 week cycles, or oral sunitinib 50 mg daily on a standard schedule of 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off.

Tumors were assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) every other cycle, and treatment was continued to the point of disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

A total of 79 patients were assigned to cabozantinib, 78 received it, and 13 were still on the drug at the time of the data cutoff. In all, 78 patients were assigned to sunitinib, 72 received it, and 2 were continuing treatment at last follow-up. The efficacy analysis was by intention-to-treat, and the safety analysis as-treated.

As noted, median PFS was 8.2.months for cabozantinib vs. 5.6 months for sunitinib, The hazard ratio for cabozatinib was 0.69 (P = .012). A subgroup analysis showed a trend favoring cabozantinib in each risk group, but this was not significant except among patients with bone metastases (HR, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.90).

The overall response rate among patients on cabozantib was 46%, compared with 18% for sunitinib. Complete responses were seen in one patient in each group, partial responses in 35 and 13, respectively, stable disease in 26 and 28, and disease progression in 14 and 20 (data on 3 and 16 patients were not evaluable).

The overall survival analysis hinted at a benefit for cabozantinib (HR, 0.80), but this was not statistically significant.

All cause grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 65% of patients in the cabozantinib arm and 68% in the sunitinib arm. Events occurring more frequently with cabozantinib were hypertension (28% vs. 22%), elevated alanine aminotranseferase (5% vs. 0%), anorexia (5% vs. 0%), palmar-plantar erythrodysethesia (8% vs. 4%), and weight loss (4% vs. 0%).

Favorable data, but wait and see

“I think cabozantinib is superior to sunitinib in poor and intermediate risk metastatic renal cell cancer,” said invited discussant Bernard Escudier, MD, from the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Paris.

“Cabozantinib is a potent VEGF inhibitor and is probably also active in good risk patients, although we need to see the data in these patients,” he said.

He added that a phase 3 study is warranted to confirm these conclusions, and that he will likely wait until those data are available before moving patients to cabozantinib in the first line.

The trial was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Choueiri disclosed advising and institutional research funding from Exelixis, maker of cabozantinib, and Pfizer, maker of sunitinib. Dr. Escudier disclosed receiving honoraria from each company.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – For patients with previously untreated intermediate- or poor-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC), cabozantanib offers a progression-free survival benefit better than that seen with sunitinib, the current standard of care, reported investigators in the phase II CABOSUN trial.

After a median follow-up of 20.8 months, progression-free survival (PFS) for patients assigned to cabozantinib (Canbometyx) the primary endpoint, was a median 8.2 months, compared with 5.6 months for patients assigned to sunitinib, reported Toni K. Choueiri, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Trial details

In the CABOSUN trial, 157 treatment-naive patients with clear-cell RCC with measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 and intermediate- or poor-risk disease according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC) criteria were randomly assigned to receive either oral cabaozantinib 60 mg daily for 6 week cycles, or oral sunitinib 50 mg daily on a standard schedule of 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off.

Tumors were assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) every other cycle, and treatment was continued to the point of disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

A total of 79 patients were assigned to cabozantinib, 78 received it, and 13 were still on the drug at the time of the data cutoff. In all, 78 patients were assigned to sunitinib, 72 received it, and 2 were continuing treatment at last follow-up. The efficacy analysis was by intention-to-treat, and the safety analysis as-treated.

As noted, median PFS was 8.2.months for cabozantinib vs. 5.6 months for sunitinib, The hazard ratio for cabozatinib was 0.69 (P = .012). A subgroup analysis showed a trend favoring cabozantinib in each risk group, but this was not significant except among patients with bone metastases (HR, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.90).

The overall response rate among patients on cabozantib was 46%, compared with 18% for sunitinib. Complete responses were seen in one patient in each group, partial responses in 35 and 13, respectively, stable disease in 26 and 28, and disease progression in 14 and 20 (data on 3 and 16 patients were not evaluable).

The overall survival analysis hinted at a benefit for cabozantinib (HR, 0.80), but this was not statistically significant.

All cause grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 65% of patients in the cabozantinib arm and 68% in the sunitinib arm. Events occurring more frequently with cabozantinib were hypertension (28% vs. 22%), elevated alanine aminotranseferase (5% vs. 0%), anorexia (5% vs. 0%), palmar-plantar erythrodysethesia (8% vs. 4%), and weight loss (4% vs. 0%).

Favorable data, but wait and see

“I think cabozantinib is superior to sunitinib in poor and intermediate risk metastatic renal cell cancer,” said invited discussant Bernard Escudier, MD, from the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Paris.

“Cabozantinib is a potent VEGF inhibitor and is probably also active in good risk patients, although we need to see the data in these patients,” he said.

He added that a phase 3 study is warranted to confirm these conclusions, and that he will likely wait until those data are available before moving patients to cabozantinib in the first line.

The trial was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Choueiri disclosed advising and institutional research funding from Exelixis, maker of cabozantinib, and Pfizer, maker of sunitinib. Dr. Escudier disclosed receiving honoraria from each company.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – For patients with previously untreated intermediate- or poor-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC), cabozantanib offers a progression-free survival benefit better than that seen with sunitinib, the current standard of care, reported investigators in the phase II CABOSUN trial.

After a median follow-up of 20.8 months, progression-free survival (PFS) for patients assigned to cabozantinib (Canbometyx) the primary endpoint, was a median 8.2 months, compared with 5.6 months for patients assigned to sunitinib, reported Toni K. Choueiri, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Trial details

In the CABOSUN trial, 157 treatment-naive patients with clear-cell RCC with measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 and intermediate- or poor-risk disease according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC) criteria were randomly assigned to receive either oral cabaozantinib 60 mg daily for 6 week cycles, or oral sunitinib 50 mg daily on a standard schedule of 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off.

Tumors were assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) every other cycle, and treatment was continued to the point of disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

A total of 79 patients were assigned to cabozantinib, 78 received it, and 13 were still on the drug at the time of the data cutoff. In all, 78 patients were assigned to sunitinib, 72 received it, and 2 were continuing treatment at last follow-up. The efficacy analysis was by intention-to-treat, and the safety analysis as-treated.

As noted, median PFS was 8.2.months for cabozantinib vs. 5.6 months for sunitinib, The hazard ratio for cabozatinib was 0.69 (P = .012). A subgroup analysis showed a trend favoring cabozantinib in each risk group, but this was not significant except among patients with bone metastases (HR, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.90).

The overall response rate among patients on cabozantib was 46%, compared with 18% for sunitinib. Complete responses were seen in one patient in each group, partial responses in 35 and 13, respectively, stable disease in 26 and 28, and disease progression in 14 and 20 (data on 3 and 16 patients were not evaluable).

The overall survival analysis hinted at a benefit for cabozantinib (HR, 0.80), but this was not statistically significant.

All cause grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 65% of patients in the cabozantinib arm and 68% in the sunitinib arm. Events occurring more frequently with cabozantinib were hypertension (28% vs. 22%), elevated alanine aminotranseferase (5% vs. 0%), anorexia (5% vs. 0%), palmar-plantar erythrodysethesia (8% vs. 4%), and weight loss (4% vs. 0%).

Favorable data, but wait and see

“I think cabozantinib is superior to sunitinib in poor and intermediate risk metastatic renal cell cancer,” said invited discussant Bernard Escudier, MD, from the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Paris.

“Cabozantinib is a potent VEGF inhibitor and is probably also active in good risk patients, although we need to see the data in these patients,” he said.

He added that a phase 3 study is warranted to confirm these conclusions, and that he will likely wait until those data are available before moving patients to cabozantinib in the first line.

The trial was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Choueiri disclosed advising and institutional research funding from Exelixis, maker of cabozantinib, and Pfizer, maker of sunitinib. Dr. Escudier disclosed receiving honoraria from each company.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – In patients with high-risk locoregional clear cell renal cell (RCC) carcinoma, adjuvant therapy with sunitinib significantly prolonged disease-free survival, compared with placebo, reported investigators in a randomized, phase III trial.

Among 615 patients with clear cell RCC at high risk for recurrence following nephrectomy, the median duration of disease-free survival (DFS) by blinded central review was 6.8 years for patients treated with sunitinib (Sutent) for 1 year, compared with 5.6 years for patients assigned to placebo, reported Alain Ravaud, MD, PhD from Hôpital Saint André in Bordeaux, France.

Central Reviewers Yes, Investigators No

As noted before, the duration of median DFS, the primary endpoint, was 14 months longer with sunitinib, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.76 (P = .03). This determination of DFS was performed by central reviewers blinded to treatment type.

However, DFS rates by investigators review, while numerically different between trial arms (6.5 years for sunitinib vs. 4.5 years in the placebo group), were not statistically significant (HR, 0.81, P = .08).

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of the data cutoff, with the median not reached in either group.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in 99.7% of the patients in the sunitinib group and in 88.5% of controls. Investigators attributed adverse events to treatment in 98.4% of patients in the sunitinib arm and 75.7% of those in the placebo arm.

The most common adverse events in the sunitinib group were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypertension, fatigue, and nausea.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 194 patients (63.4%) in the sunitinib group and in 66 (21.7%) in the placebo group.

Interestingly, there were fewer dose reductions in the sunitinib group (34.3% vs. 46.4%) and fewer dose interruptions (2.0% vs. 13.2%), although more patients on sunitinib discontinued because of adverse events (28.1% vs. 5.6%).

The most common cause of death in each group was RCC, which accounted for 47 of 62 deaths (75.8%) in the sunitinib arm and 47 of 64 (73.4%) in the placebo arm. No death was attributed to treatment-associated toxicities.

Patients on sunitinib also had generally lower scores on quality of life scales, but the between-group differences did not reach the prespecified minimally important difference of 10 patients except for the domains of diarrhea and loss of appetite.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – In patients with high-risk locoregional clear cell renal cell (RCC) carcinoma, adjuvant therapy with sunitinib significantly prolonged disease-free survival, compared with placebo, reported investigators in a randomized, phase III trial.

Among 615 patients with clear cell RCC at high risk for recurrence following nephrectomy, the median duration of disease-free survival (DFS) by blinded central review was 6.8 years for patients treated with sunitinib (Sutent) for 1 year, compared with 5.6 years for patients assigned to placebo, reported Alain Ravaud, MD, PhD from Hôpital Saint André in Bordeaux, France.

Central Reviewers Yes, Investigators No

As noted before, the duration of median DFS, the primary endpoint, was 14 months longer with sunitinib, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.76 (P = .03). This determination of DFS was performed by central reviewers blinded to treatment type.

However, DFS rates by investigators review, while numerically different between trial arms (6.5 years for sunitinib vs. 4.5 years in the placebo group), were not statistically significant (HR, 0.81, P = .08).

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of the data cutoff, with the median not reached in either group.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in 99.7% of the patients in the sunitinib group and in 88.5% of controls. Investigators attributed adverse events to treatment in 98.4% of patients in the sunitinib arm and 75.7% of those in the placebo arm.

The most common adverse events in the sunitinib group were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypertension, fatigue, and nausea.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 194 patients (63.4%) in the sunitinib group and in 66 (21.7%) in the placebo group.

Interestingly, there were fewer dose reductions in the sunitinib group (34.3% vs. 46.4%) and fewer dose interruptions (2.0% vs. 13.2%), although more patients on sunitinib discontinued because of adverse events (28.1% vs. 5.6%).

The most common cause of death in each group was RCC, which accounted for 47 of 62 deaths (75.8%) in the sunitinib arm and 47 of 64 (73.4%) in the placebo arm. No death was attributed to treatment-associated toxicities.

Patients on sunitinib also had generally lower scores on quality of life scales, but the between-group differences did not reach the prespecified minimally important difference of 10 patients except for the domains of diarrhea and loss of appetite.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – In patients with high-risk locoregional clear cell renal cell (RCC) carcinoma, adjuvant therapy with sunitinib significantly prolonged disease-free survival, compared with placebo, reported investigators in a randomized, phase III trial.

Among 615 patients with clear cell RCC at high risk for recurrence following nephrectomy, the median duration of disease-free survival (DFS) by blinded central review was 6.8 years for patients treated with sunitinib (Sutent) for 1 year, compared with 5.6 years for patients assigned to placebo, reported Alain Ravaud, MD, PhD from Hôpital Saint André in Bordeaux, France.

Central Reviewers Yes, Investigators No

As noted before, the duration of median DFS, the primary endpoint, was 14 months longer with sunitinib, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.76 (P = .03). This determination of DFS was performed by central reviewers blinded to treatment type.

However, DFS rates by investigators review, while numerically different between trial arms (6.5 years for sunitinib vs. 4.5 years in the placebo group), were not statistically significant (HR, 0.81, P = .08).

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of the data cutoff, with the median not reached in either group.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in 99.7% of the patients in the sunitinib group and in 88.5% of controls. Investigators attributed adverse events to treatment in 98.4% of patients in the sunitinib arm and 75.7% of those in the placebo arm.

The most common adverse events in the sunitinib group were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypertension, fatigue, and nausea.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 194 patients (63.4%) in the sunitinib group and in 66 (21.7%) in the placebo group.

Interestingly, there were fewer dose reductions in the sunitinib group (34.3% vs. 46.4%) and fewer dose interruptions (2.0% vs. 13.2%), although more patients on sunitinib discontinued because of adverse events (28.1% vs. 5.6%).

The most common cause of death in each group was RCC, which accounted for 47 of 62 deaths (75.8%) in the sunitinib arm and 47 of 64 (73.4%) in the placebo arm. No death was attributed to treatment-associated toxicities.

Patients on sunitinib also had generally lower scores on quality of life scales, but the between-group differences did not reach the prespecified minimally important difference of 10 patients except for the domains of diarrhea and loss of appetite.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has modified the dosage regimen for nivolumab for indications of renal cell carcinoma, metastatic melanoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.

The single-dose regimen of nivolumab (3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) is replaced with the new recommended regimen of 240 mg IV every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity, the FDA said in a written statement.

The nivolumab (Opdivo) dosing regimen in combination with ipilimumab for melanoma will stay the same (nivolumab 1 mg/kg IV, followed by ipilimumab on the same day, every 3 weeks for four doses); however, after completion of ipilimumab, the recommended nivolumab dose is modified to 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The recommended dose for classical Hodgkin lymphoma remains at 3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

The change was made based on analyses demonstrating the comparability of the pharmacokinetics exposure, safety, and efficacy of the proposed new dosing regimen with the previously approved regimen. “Based on simulations by the population pharmacokinetics model, [the] FDA determined that the overall exposure at 240 mg every 2 weeks flat dose is similar (less than 6% difference) to 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. These differences in exposure are not likely to have a clinically meaningful effect on safety and efficacy, since dose/exposure response relationships appear to be relatively flat in these three indications,” the FDA said.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has modified the dosage regimen for nivolumab for indications of renal cell carcinoma, metastatic melanoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.

The single-dose regimen of nivolumab (3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) is replaced with the new recommended regimen of 240 mg IV every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity, the FDA said in a written statement.

The nivolumab (Opdivo) dosing regimen in combination with ipilimumab for melanoma will stay the same (nivolumab 1 mg/kg IV, followed by ipilimumab on the same day, every 3 weeks for four doses); however, after completion of ipilimumab, the recommended nivolumab dose is modified to 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The recommended dose for classical Hodgkin lymphoma remains at 3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

The change was made based on analyses demonstrating the comparability of the pharmacokinetics exposure, safety, and efficacy of the proposed new dosing regimen with the previously approved regimen. “Based on simulations by the population pharmacokinetics model, [the] FDA determined that the overall exposure at 240 mg every 2 weeks flat dose is similar (less than 6% difference) to 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. These differences in exposure are not likely to have a clinically meaningful effect on safety and efficacy, since dose/exposure response relationships appear to be relatively flat in these three indications,” the FDA said.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has modified the dosage regimen for nivolumab for indications of renal cell carcinoma, metastatic melanoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.

The single-dose regimen of nivolumab (3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) is replaced with the new recommended regimen of 240 mg IV every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity, the FDA said in a written statement.

The nivolumab (Opdivo) dosing regimen in combination with ipilimumab for melanoma will stay the same (nivolumab 1 mg/kg IV, followed by ipilimumab on the same day, every 3 weeks for four doses); however, after completion of ipilimumab, the recommended nivolumab dose is modified to 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The recommended dose for classical Hodgkin lymphoma remains at 3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

The change was made based on analyses demonstrating the comparability of the pharmacokinetics exposure, safety, and efficacy of the proposed new dosing regimen with the previously approved regimen. “Based on simulations by the population pharmacokinetics model, [the] FDA determined that the overall exposure at 240 mg every 2 weeks flat dose is similar (less than 6% difference) to 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. These differences in exposure are not likely to have a clinically meaningful effect on safety and efficacy, since dose/exposure response relationships appear to be relatively flat in these three indications,” the FDA said.

[email protected]

The combination of an mTOR complex 1 inhibitor (everolimus) plus a VEGF inhibitor (bevacizumab) showed promise against advanced non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma characterized by papillary features in a small manufacturer-sponsored phase II trial, according to a report published online Sept. 6 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Non–clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ncRCCs) are a diverse mixture of heterogeneous malignancies and include papillary, chromophobe, medullary, collecting duct, and a variety of unclassified tumor types. Researchers performed a single-center trial to assess the effectiveness of combined everolimus plus bevacizumab in 35 treatment-naive patients who presented with advanced disease representing all of these histologic types. The unclassified subgroup (23 patients) included several tumors with prominent papillary architectural features that did not fulfill other criteria for papillary RCC, said Martin H. Voss, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his associates.

A total of 18 patients (53%) were alive and free of disease progression at 6 months, and 10 (29%) were alive and progression free at 12 months. Two patients still were receiving study treatment at the time of publication, after 20.2 and 30.4 months of therapy, respectively.

“Objective responses were observed in a sizable proportion of subjects with significant papillary (7 of 18) or chromophobe (2 of 5) tumor components but rarely in patients with unclassified RCC without papillary features (1 of 9) or those with medullary RCC (0 of 2),” Dr. Voss and his associates reported. Among patients with unclassified RCC, the 14 whose cancer had a major papillary component showed an objective response rate of 43%, a median progression-free survival of 12.9 months, and a median overall survival of 28.2 months. In contrast, the nine patients whose cancer did not have a major papillary component showed an objective response rate of 11%, a median progression-free survival of 1.9 months, and a median overall survival of 9.3 months, the investigators said (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sept 6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.9084).

Treatment was generally well tolerated, even though there were frequent low-grade toxicities. High-grade toxicities known to be associated with mTOR complex 1 inhibitors or VEGF inhibitors included hyperglycemia (11%), hypertriglyceridemia (14%), lymphopenia (20%), hypertension (29%), and proteinuria (18%). There were two patient deaths from gastrointestinal hemorrhage, one of which was considered possibly related to bevacizumab.

Archived tissue samples were available for genetic analysis for some patients. Acquired mutations in the ARID1A gene were noted in 5 of 14 tumors with major papillary components, and all 5 of those patients achieved more than 6 months of progression-free survival with the combination therapy. In contrast, no ARID1A mutations were detected in any of the patients who had shorter progression-free survival, and none were detected in any of the tumors that did not have papillary components. This suggests that ARID1A “merits further study for its functional role in papillary RCC variants and as a candidate biomarker for future study of everolimus plus bevacizumab,” Dr. Voss and his associates said.

Novartis supported the study. Dr. Voss reported ties to Novartis, Calithera Biosciences, Natera, GlaxoSmithKline, Exelixis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Takeda; his associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

The combination of an mTOR complex 1 inhibitor (everolimus) plus a VEGF inhibitor (bevacizumab) showed promise against advanced non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma characterized by papillary features in a small manufacturer-sponsored phase II trial, according to a report published online Sept. 6 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Non–clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ncRCCs) are a diverse mixture of heterogeneous malignancies and include papillary, chromophobe, medullary, collecting duct, and a variety of unclassified tumor types. Researchers performed a single-center trial to assess the effectiveness of combined everolimus plus bevacizumab in 35 treatment-naive patients who presented with advanced disease representing all of these histologic types. The unclassified subgroup (23 patients) included several tumors with prominent papillary architectural features that did not fulfill other criteria for papillary RCC, said Martin H. Voss, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his associates.

A total of 18 patients (53%) were alive and free of disease progression at 6 months, and 10 (29%) were alive and progression free at 12 months. Two patients still were receiving study treatment at the time of publication, after 20.2 and 30.4 months of therapy, respectively.

“Objective responses were observed in a sizable proportion of subjects with significant papillary (7 of 18) or chromophobe (2 of 5) tumor components but rarely in patients with unclassified RCC without papillary features (1 of 9) or those with medullary RCC (0 of 2),” Dr. Voss and his associates reported. Among patients with unclassified RCC, the 14 whose cancer had a major papillary component showed an objective response rate of 43%, a median progression-free survival of 12.9 months, and a median overall survival of 28.2 months. In contrast, the nine patients whose cancer did not have a major papillary component showed an objective response rate of 11%, a median progression-free survival of 1.9 months, and a median overall survival of 9.3 months, the investigators said (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sept 6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.9084).

Treatment was generally well tolerated, even though there were frequent low-grade toxicities. High-grade toxicities known to be associated with mTOR complex 1 inhibitors or VEGF inhibitors included hyperglycemia (11%), hypertriglyceridemia (14%), lymphopenia (20%), hypertension (29%), and proteinuria (18%). There were two patient deaths from gastrointestinal hemorrhage, one of which was considered possibly related to bevacizumab.

Archived tissue samples were available for genetic analysis for some patients. Acquired mutations in the ARID1A gene were noted in 5 of 14 tumors with major papillary components, and all 5 of those patients achieved more than 6 months of progression-free survival with the combination therapy. In contrast, no ARID1A mutations were detected in any of the patients who had shorter progression-free survival, and none were detected in any of the tumors that did not have papillary components. This suggests that ARID1A “merits further study for its functional role in papillary RCC variants and as a candidate biomarker for future study of everolimus plus bevacizumab,” Dr. Voss and his associates said.

Novartis supported the study. Dr. Voss reported ties to Novartis, Calithera Biosciences, Natera, GlaxoSmithKline, Exelixis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Takeda; his associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

The combination of an mTOR complex 1 inhibitor (everolimus) plus a VEGF inhibitor (bevacizumab) showed promise against advanced non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma characterized by papillary features in a small manufacturer-sponsored phase II trial, according to a report published online Sept. 6 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Non–clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ncRCCs) are a diverse mixture of heterogeneous malignancies and include papillary, chromophobe, medullary, collecting duct, and a variety of unclassified tumor types. Researchers performed a single-center trial to assess the effectiveness of combined everolimus plus bevacizumab in 35 treatment-naive patients who presented with advanced disease representing all of these histologic types. The unclassified subgroup (23 patients) included several tumors with prominent papillary architectural features that did not fulfill other criteria for papillary RCC, said Martin H. Voss, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his associates.

A total of 18 patients (53%) were alive and free of disease progression at 6 months, and 10 (29%) were alive and progression free at 12 months. Two patients still were receiving study treatment at the time of publication, after 20.2 and 30.4 months of therapy, respectively.

“Objective responses were observed in a sizable proportion of subjects with significant papillary (7 of 18) or chromophobe (2 of 5) tumor components but rarely in patients with unclassified RCC without papillary features (1 of 9) or those with medullary RCC (0 of 2),” Dr. Voss and his associates reported. Among patients with unclassified RCC, the 14 whose cancer had a major papillary component showed an objective response rate of 43%, a median progression-free survival of 12.9 months, and a median overall survival of 28.2 months. In contrast, the nine patients whose cancer did not have a major papillary component showed an objective response rate of 11%, a median progression-free survival of 1.9 months, and a median overall survival of 9.3 months, the investigators said (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sept 6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.9084).

Treatment was generally well tolerated, even though there were frequent low-grade toxicities. High-grade toxicities known to be associated with mTOR complex 1 inhibitors or VEGF inhibitors included hyperglycemia (11%), hypertriglyceridemia (14%), lymphopenia (20%), hypertension (29%), and proteinuria (18%). There were two patient deaths from gastrointestinal hemorrhage, one of which was considered possibly related to bevacizumab.

Archived tissue samples were available for genetic analysis for some patients. Acquired mutations in the ARID1A gene were noted in 5 of 14 tumors with major papillary components, and all 5 of those patients achieved more than 6 months of progression-free survival with the combination therapy. In contrast, no ARID1A mutations were detected in any of the patients who had shorter progression-free survival, and none were detected in any of the tumors that did not have papillary components. This suggests that ARID1A “merits further study for its functional role in papillary RCC variants and as a candidate biomarker for future study of everolimus plus bevacizumab,” Dr. Voss and his associates said.

Novartis supported the study. Dr. Voss reported ties to Novartis, Calithera Biosciences, Natera, GlaxoSmithKline, Exelixis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Takeda; his associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

For metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with fewer adverse risk factors and fewer metastatic disease sites, initial active surveillance may be a safe and feasible approach to delay the toxicities of systemic therapy, investigators report.

Fifty-two patients with treatment-naive, asymptomatic, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma were enrolled in a prospective phase II trial and radiographically assessed at baseline, every 3 months for year 1, every 4 months for year 2, then every 6 months thereafter. Patients continued on observation until the treating physician and patient made the decision to initiate systemic therapy.

Median follow-up time was 38.1 months and median time on surveillance before treatment initiation – the primary endpoint of the study – was 14.9 months (95% confidence interval, 10.6-25.0), reported Brian Rini, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute and his associates (Lancet Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30196-6).

Forty-three (90%) of the 48 evaluable patients experienced disease progression during the study, median time to progression was 9.4 months, and 22 patients died from renal cell carcinoma. One patient developed brain metastases and died without receiving systemic therapy. In multivariable analysis, only the number of involved organs (P = .0414) and number of International Metastatic Database Consortium risk factors (P = .0403) were independently prognostic.

Using this analysis, Dr. Rini and associates identified two prognostic groups – a favorable group consisting of patients with no or one International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) risk factors and two or fewer organs with metastatic disease, and an unfavorable group consisting of all other patients. The favorable group (n = 22) patients had an estimated median surveillance time of 22.2 months (95% CI, 13.8-33.3), whereas the unfavorable group (n = 19) had an estimated median surveillance time of 8.4 months (3.2-14.1; P = .0056).

Anxiety, depression, and quality of life did not change significantly over the period of surveillance, suggesting that living with untreated cancer did not cause psychological harm to patients in this study.

“Findings from our prospective trial show active surveillance to be a viable initial strategy in some patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. The median surveillance period before start of systematic therapy was greater than 1 year, with no observed adverse effects on quality of life, anxiety and depression,” Dr. Rini and his associates said.

“Appropriate selection of patients and adequate monitoring, which should include CNS surveillance, is crucial in application of this approach,” they added.

This study was unfunded. One investigator reported receiving financial compensation from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. All other investigators reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

For metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with fewer adverse risk factors and fewer metastatic disease sites, initial active surveillance may be a safe and feasible approach to delay the toxicities of systemic therapy, investigators report.

Fifty-two patients with treatment-naive, asymptomatic, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma were enrolled in a prospective phase II trial and radiographically assessed at baseline, every 3 months for year 1, every 4 months for year 2, then every 6 months thereafter. Patients continued on observation until the treating physician and patient made the decision to initiate systemic therapy.

Median follow-up time was 38.1 months and median time on surveillance before treatment initiation – the primary endpoint of the study – was 14.9 months (95% confidence interval, 10.6-25.0), reported Brian Rini, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute and his associates (Lancet Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30196-6).

Forty-three (90%) of the 48 evaluable patients experienced disease progression during the study, median time to progression was 9.4 months, and 22 patients died from renal cell carcinoma. One patient developed brain metastases and died without receiving systemic therapy. In multivariable analysis, only the number of involved organs (P = .0414) and number of International Metastatic Database Consortium risk factors (P = .0403) were independently prognostic.

Using this analysis, Dr. Rini and associates identified two prognostic groups – a favorable group consisting of patients with no or one International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) risk factors and two or fewer organs with metastatic disease, and an unfavorable group consisting of all other patients. The favorable group (n = 22) patients had an estimated median surveillance time of 22.2 months (95% CI, 13.8-33.3), whereas the unfavorable group (n = 19) had an estimated median surveillance time of 8.4 months (3.2-14.1; P = .0056).

Anxiety, depression, and quality of life did not change significantly over the period of surveillance, suggesting that living with untreated cancer did not cause psychological harm to patients in this study.

“Findings from our prospective trial show active surveillance to be a viable initial strategy in some patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. The median surveillance period before start of systematic therapy was greater than 1 year, with no observed adverse effects on quality of life, anxiety and depression,” Dr. Rini and his associates said.

“Appropriate selection of patients and adequate monitoring, which should include CNS surveillance, is crucial in application of this approach,” they added.

This study was unfunded. One investigator reported receiving financial compensation from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. All other investigators reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

For metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with fewer adverse risk factors and fewer metastatic disease sites, initial active surveillance may be a safe and feasible approach to delay the toxicities of systemic therapy, investigators report.

Fifty-two patients with treatment-naive, asymptomatic, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma were enrolled in a prospective phase II trial and radiographically assessed at baseline, every 3 months for year 1, every 4 months for year 2, then every 6 months thereafter. Patients continued on observation until the treating physician and patient made the decision to initiate systemic therapy.

Median follow-up time was 38.1 months and median time on surveillance before treatment initiation – the primary endpoint of the study – was 14.9 months (95% confidence interval, 10.6-25.0), reported Brian Rini, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute and his associates (Lancet Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30196-6).

Forty-three (90%) of the 48 evaluable patients experienced disease progression during the study, median time to progression was 9.4 months, and 22 patients died from renal cell carcinoma. One patient developed brain metastases and died without receiving systemic therapy. In multivariable analysis, only the number of involved organs (P = .0414) and number of International Metastatic Database Consortium risk factors (P = .0403) were independently prognostic.

Using this analysis, Dr. Rini and associates identified two prognostic groups – a favorable group consisting of patients with no or one International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) risk factors and two or fewer organs with metastatic disease, and an unfavorable group consisting of all other patients. The favorable group (n = 22) patients had an estimated median surveillance time of 22.2 months (95% CI, 13.8-33.3), whereas the unfavorable group (n = 19) had an estimated median surveillance time of 8.4 months (3.2-14.1; P = .0056).

Anxiety, depression, and quality of life did not change significantly over the period of surveillance, suggesting that living with untreated cancer did not cause psychological harm to patients in this study.

“Findings from our prospective trial show active surveillance to be a viable initial strategy in some patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. The median surveillance period before start of systematic therapy was greater than 1 year, with no observed adverse effects on quality of life, anxiety and depression,” Dr. Rini and his associates said.

“Appropriate selection of patients and adequate monitoring, which should include CNS surveillance, is crucial in application of this approach,” they added.

This study was unfunded. One investigator reported receiving financial compensation from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. All other investigators reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Many patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma have tumors that do not respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors targeted against the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway, despite expression of the target PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) on their tumors. Now investigators think they know why, and hope to use the information to predict which patients are likely to benefit and identify potential new therapies or combinations.

A study of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) samples from tumors with both good and poor clinical responses to treatment with the anti–PD-1 agent nivolumab (Opdivo) showed that a tumor gene–expression profile tipped more toward genes for controlling metabolic functions rather than immune functions was associated with a lack of response to anti-PD-1 therapy, reported Suzanne L. Topalian, MD, and her colleagues from Johns Hopkins University and the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, both in Baltimore.

“These findings suggest that tumor cell–intrinsic metabolic factors may contribute to treatment resistance in RCC, thus serving as predictive markers for treatment outcomes and potential new targets for combination therapy regimens with anti–PD-1,” they wrote in a study published online in Cancer Immunology Research.

The investigators obtained tumor samples from 13 patients with unresectable metastatic RCC treated in one of four clinical trials. They used radiographic staging to classify each patient as either a responder or nonresponder to anti–PD-1 therapy according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). The samples were evaluated with whole genome microarray and multiplex quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) profiling and analysis, and the results were compared with those from eight renal cell carcinoma cell lines.

They looked for expression of nearly 30,000 gene targets in samples from responders and nonresponders and found a pattern of differential expression of genes encoding for metabolic pathways and immune functions.

Specifically, they found that the expression of genes involved in metabolic and solute transport functions (for example, UGT1A) were associated with poor response to nivolumab, whereas overexpression of genes for immune markers involved in T-cell differentiation (BACH2) and leukocyte migration (CCL3) were associated with a good response.

The investigators acknowledge that the study was retrospective and limited by the analysis of only a small number of tumor samples but suggest that their findings point the way to further investigations in larger groups of patients with RCC tumors, including those both positive and negative for PD-L1 expression.

“The general approach to identifying biomarkers of clinical response to PD-1–targeted therapies has so far focused on immunologic factors in the [tumor microenvironment]. However, a deeper level of investigation may be warranted for individual tumor types, and intersections of tumor cell–intrinsic factors with immunologic factors may be particularly revealing,” they wrote.

The study was supported by research grants from the Bloomberg-Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Johns Hopkins, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and Stand Up To Cancer. Dr. Topalian has served as a consultant/advisory board member for Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Merck, and Pfizer, and has an ownership interest in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Five Prime Therapeutics,and Potenza Therapeutics. Other coauthors reported similar potential conflicts of interest.

Many patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma have tumors that do not respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors targeted against the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway, despite expression of the target PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) on their tumors. Now investigators think they know why, and hope to use the information to predict which patients are likely to benefit and identify potential new therapies or combinations.

A study of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) samples from tumors with both good and poor clinical responses to treatment with the anti–PD-1 agent nivolumab (Opdivo) showed that a tumor gene–expression profile tipped more toward genes for controlling metabolic functions rather than immune functions was associated with a lack of response to anti-PD-1 therapy, reported Suzanne L. Topalian, MD, and her colleagues from Johns Hopkins University and the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, both in Baltimore.

“These findings suggest that tumor cell–intrinsic metabolic factors may contribute to treatment resistance in RCC, thus serving as predictive markers for treatment outcomes and potential new targets for combination therapy regimens with anti–PD-1,” they wrote in a study published online in Cancer Immunology Research.

The investigators obtained tumor samples from 13 patients with unresectable metastatic RCC treated in one of four clinical trials. They used radiographic staging to classify each patient as either a responder or nonresponder to anti–PD-1 therapy according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). The samples were evaluated with whole genome microarray and multiplex quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) profiling and analysis, and the results were compared with those from eight renal cell carcinoma cell lines.

They looked for expression of nearly 30,000 gene targets in samples from responders and nonresponders and found a pattern of differential expression of genes encoding for metabolic pathways and immune functions.

Specifically, they found that the expression of genes involved in metabolic and solute transport functions (for example, UGT1A) were associated with poor response to nivolumab, whereas overexpression of genes for immune markers involved in T-cell differentiation (BACH2) and leukocyte migration (CCL3) were associated with a good response.

The investigators acknowledge that the study was retrospective and limited by the analysis of only a small number of tumor samples but suggest that their findings point the way to further investigations in larger groups of patients with RCC tumors, including those both positive and negative for PD-L1 expression.

“The general approach to identifying biomarkers of clinical response to PD-1–targeted therapies has so far focused on immunologic factors in the [tumor microenvironment]. However, a deeper level of investigation may be warranted for individual tumor types, and intersections of tumor cell–intrinsic factors with immunologic factors may be particularly revealing,” they wrote.

The study was supported by research grants from the Bloomberg-Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Johns Hopkins, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and Stand Up To Cancer. Dr. Topalian has served as a consultant/advisory board member for Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Merck, and Pfizer, and has an ownership interest in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Five Prime Therapeutics,and Potenza Therapeutics. Other coauthors reported similar potential conflicts of interest.

Many patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma have tumors that do not respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors targeted against the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway, despite expression of the target PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) on their tumors. Now investigators think they know why, and hope to use the information to predict which patients are likely to benefit and identify potential new therapies or combinations.

A study of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) samples from tumors with both good and poor clinical responses to treatment with the anti–PD-1 agent nivolumab (Opdivo) showed that a tumor gene–expression profile tipped more toward genes for controlling metabolic functions rather than immune functions was associated with a lack of response to anti-PD-1 therapy, reported Suzanne L. Topalian, MD, and her colleagues from Johns Hopkins University and the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, both in Baltimore.

“These findings suggest that tumor cell–intrinsic metabolic factors may contribute to treatment resistance in RCC, thus serving as predictive markers for treatment outcomes and potential new targets for combination therapy regimens with anti–PD-1,” they wrote in a study published online in Cancer Immunology Research.

The investigators obtained tumor samples from 13 patients with unresectable metastatic RCC treated in one of four clinical trials. They used radiographic staging to classify each patient as either a responder or nonresponder to anti–PD-1 therapy according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). The samples were evaluated with whole genome microarray and multiplex quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) profiling and analysis, and the results were compared with those from eight renal cell carcinoma cell lines.

They looked for expression of nearly 30,000 gene targets in samples from responders and nonresponders and found a pattern of differential expression of genes encoding for metabolic pathways and immune functions.

Specifically, they found that the expression of genes involved in metabolic and solute transport functions (for example, UGT1A) were associated with poor response to nivolumab, whereas overexpression of genes for immune markers involved in T-cell differentiation (BACH2) and leukocyte migration (CCL3) were associated with a good response.

The investigators acknowledge that the study was retrospective and limited by the analysis of only a small number of tumor samples but suggest that their findings point the way to further investigations in larger groups of patients with RCC tumors, including those both positive and negative for PD-L1 expression.

“The general approach to identifying biomarkers of clinical response to PD-1–targeted therapies has so far focused on immunologic factors in the [tumor microenvironment]. However, a deeper level of investigation may be warranted for individual tumor types, and intersections of tumor cell–intrinsic factors with immunologic factors may be particularly revealing,” they wrote.

The study was supported by research grants from the Bloomberg-Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Johns Hopkins, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and Stand Up To Cancer. Dr. Topalian has served as a consultant/advisory board member for Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Merck, and Pfizer, and has an ownership interest in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Five Prime Therapeutics,and Potenza Therapeutics. Other coauthors reported similar potential conflicts of interest.

CHICAGO – Investigational agent PT2385, an inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor 2-alpha (HIF-2alpha), appears safe and tolerable and demonstrated early evidence of clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In a small, phase I dose-escalation study, 39% of patients in the study achieved complete response, partial response, or stable disease lasting at least 16 weeks.

Dr. Kevin Courtney

PT2385 is a first-in-class, orally administered selective small molecule inhibitor of HIF-2alpha, a transcription factor with a role in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

“Hypoxia-inducible factor 2-alpha is a key oncogenic driver of clear cell renal cell carcinoma,” Kevin Courtney, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said at the meeting.

A total of 51 patients (n = 26 for dose escalation cohort and n = 25 in dose expansion cohort) met the study’s eligibility requirements of having a diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score ranging from 0 to 1, and at least one prior anticancer therapy. The median age of the cohort was 65 years with the youngest participant being 29 years and the oldest being 80 years old. The majority of patients were male (71%), had received four or more prior systemic therapies (53%), and had undergone vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (98%). Patients were treated with continuous twice-daily oral dosing of PT2385 until progression or toxicity. A total of three patients were treated at the 100-mg dose, three at the 200-mg dose, four at the 400-mg dose, seven at the 800-mg dose, six at a dose of 1,200 mg, and three at a dose of 1,800 mg.

“No dose-limiting toxicity was observed at any dose level,” Dr. Courtney said.

Based on safety, pharmokinetic and pharmodynamic data, 800 mg twice daily was the selected dose for the expansion cohort, he reported.

Of 51 patients treated, 1 patient had a complete response, 3 achieved partial responses, and 16 patients achieved stable disease for at least 16 weeks. The most common grade one or two adverse events were anemia (n = 18), peripheral edema (n = 18), fatigue (n = 18), nausea (n = 15), and back pain (n = 12). Only two grade four adverse events (low lymphocyte count) were reported.

“Notably, hypertension was not seen,” Dr. Courtney said.

At the time the study concluded, the four patients who achieved complete or partial responses remained on the treatment, and five had received treatment for a year or longer.

The study was funded by Peloton Therapeutics. Dr. Courtney reported having stock and ownership interest in, serving in advisory roles for, or receiving research funding from multiple companies. Several coinvestigators reported receiving research funding from or holding patents with multiple companies including Peloton Therapeutics.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

CHICAGO – Investigational agent PT2385, an inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor 2-alpha (HIF-2alpha), appears safe and tolerable and demonstrated early evidence of clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In a small, phase I dose-escalation study, 39% of patients in the study achieved complete response, partial response, or stable disease lasting at least 16 weeks.

Dr. Kevin Courtney

PT2385 is a first-in-class, orally administered selective small molecule inhibitor of HIF-2alpha, a transcription factor with a role in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

“Hypoxia-inducible factor 2-alpha is a key oncogenic driver of clear cell renal cell carcinoma,” Kevin Courtney, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said at the meeting.

A total of 51 patients (n = 26 for dose escalation cohort and n = 25 in dose expansion cohort) met the study’s eligibility requirements of having a diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score ranging from 0 to 1, and at least one prior anticancer therapy. The median age of the cohort was 65 years with the youngest participant being 29 years and the oldest being 80 years old. The majority of patients were male (71%), had received four or more prior systemic therapies (53%), and had undergone vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (98%). Patients were treated with continuous twice-daily oral dosing of PT2385 until progression or toxicity. A total of three patients were treated at the 100-mg dose, three at the 200-mg dose, four at the 400-mg dose, seven at the 800-mg dose, six at a dose of 1,200 mg, and three at a dose of 1,800 mg.

“No dose-limiting toxicity was observed at any dose level,” Dr. Courtney said.

Based on safety, pharmokinetic and pharmodynamic data, 800 mg twice daily was the selected dose for the expansion cohort, he reported.

Of 51 patients treated, 1 patient had a complete response, 3 achieved partial responses, and 16 patients achieved stable disease for at least 16 weeks. The most common grade one or two adverse events were anemia (n = 18), peripheral edema (n = 18), fatigue (n = 18), nausea (n = 15), and back pain (n = 12). Only two grade four adverse events (low lymphocyte count) were reported.

“Notably, hypertension was not seen,” Dr. Courtney said.

At the time the study concluded, the four patients who achieved complete or partial responses remained on the treatment, and five had received treatment for a year or longer.

The study was funded by Peloton Therapeutics. Dr. Courtney reported having stock and ownership interest in, serving in advisory roles for, or receiving research funding from multiple companies. Several coinvestigators reported receiving research funding from or holding patents with multiple companies including Peloton Therapeutics.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

CHICAGO – Investigational agent PT2385, an inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor 2-alpha (HIF-2alpha), appears safe and tolerable and demonstrated early evidence of clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In a small, phase I dose-escalation study, 39% of patients in the study achieved complete response, partial response, or stable disease lasting at least 16 weeks.

Dr. Kevin Courtney

PT2385 is a first-in-class, orally administered selective small molecule inhibitor of HIF-2alpha, a transcription factor with a role in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

“Hypoxia-inducible factor 2-alpha is a key oncogenic driver of clear cell renal cell carcinoma,” Kevin Courtney, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said at the meeting.

A total of 51 patients (n = 26 for dose escalation cohort and n = 25 in dose expansion cohort) met the study’s eligibility requirements of having a diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score ranging from 0 to 1, and at least one prior anticancer therapy. The median age of the cohort was 65 years with the youngest participant being 29 years and the oldest being 80 years old. The majority of patients were male (71%), had received four or more prior systemic therapies (53%), and had undergone vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (98%). Patients were treated with continuous twice-daily oral dosing of PT2385 until progression or toxicity. A total of three patients were treated at the 100-mg dose, three at the 200-mg dose, four at the 400-mg dose, seven at the 800-mg dose, six at a dose of 1,200 mg, and three at a dose of 1,800 mg.

“No dose-limiting toxicity was observed at any dose level,” Dr. Courtney said.

Based on safety, pharmokinetic and pharmodynamic data, 800 mg twice daily was the selected dose for the expansion cohort, he reported.

Of 51 patients treated, 1 patient had a complete response, 3 achieved partial responses, and 16 patients achieved stable disease for at least 16 weeks. The most common grade one or two adverse events were anemia (n = 18), peripheral edema (n = 18), fatigue (n = 18), nausea (n = 15), and back pain (n = 12). Only two grade four adverse events (low lymphocyte count) were reported.

“Notably, hypertension was not seen,” Dr. Courtney said.

At the time the study concluded, the four patients who achieved complete or partial responses remained on the treatment, and five had received treatment for a year or longer.

The study was funded by Peloton Therapeutics. Dr. Courtney reported having stock and ownership interest in, serving in advisory roles for, or receiving research funding from multiple companies. Several coinvestigators reported receiving research funding from or holding patents with multiple companies including Peloton Therapeutics.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

CHICAGO – The oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib confers an overall survival benefit to patients with previously treated renal cell carcinoma, compared with everolimus, according to the final survival analysis of the phase III METEOR trial.

An analysis of the 658 patients enrolled in the study revealed that “treatment with cabozantinib significantly improved overall survival, compared to everolimus. The median overall survival was 21.4 months in the cabozantinib group, compared to 16.5 months in the everolimus group,” Toni Choueiri, M.D., of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

”The hazard ratio of 0.66 does represent a 34% reduction in the rate of deaths,” he said.

An overall survival benefit associated with cabozantinib was consistently observed in all prespecified groups including the groups stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk criteria, the number and duration of prior vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies, and tumor MET status.

An analysis of the same 658 patients enrolled in the METEOR trial, presented at the Genitourinary Cancers Symposium in early 2016, indicated cabozantinib improved progression-free survival, compared with everolimus (7.4 months vs. 3.9 months, HR, 0.52; P less than .001).

Cabozantinib is the only agent to demonstrate a significant benefit in overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate in a phase III trial in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, according to Dr. Choueiri. “Cabozantinib is an important new treatment option for these patients,” he said.

This study was funded by Exelixis. Dr. Choueiri reported serving in advisory roles and receiving research funding and honoraria from multiple companies.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessicolecraig

CHICAGO – The oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib confers an overall survival benefit to patients with previously treated renal cell carcinoma, compared with everolimus, according to the final survival analysis of the phase III METEOR trial.

An analysis of the 658 patients enrolled in the study revealed that “treatment with cabozantinib significantly improved overall survival, compared to everolimus. The median overall survival was 21.4 months in the cabozantinib group, compared to 16.5 months in the everolimus group,” Toni Choueiri, M.D., of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

”The hazard ratio of 0.66 does represent a 34% reduction in the rate of deaths,” he said.

An overall survival benefit associated with cabozantinib was consistently observed in all prespecified groups including the groups stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk criteria, the number and duration of prior vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies, and tumor MET status.

An analysis of the same 658 patients enrolled in the METEOR trial, presented at the Genitourinary Cancers Symposium in early 2016, indicated cabozantinib improved progression-free survival, compared with everolimus (7.4 months vs. 3.9 months, HR, 0.52; P less than .001).

Cabozantinib is the only agent to demonstrate a significant benefit in overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate in a phase III trial in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, according to Dr. Choueiri. “Cabozantinib is an important new treatment option for these patients,” he said.

This study was funded by Exelixis. Dr. Choueiri reported serving in advisory roles and receiving research funding and honoraria from multiple companies.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessicolecraig

CHICAGO – The oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib confers an overall survival benefit to patients with previously treated renal cell carcinoma, compared with everolimus, according to the final survival analysis of the phase III METEOR trial.

An analysis of the 658 patients enrolled in the study revealed that “treatment with cabozantinib significantly improved overall survival, compared to everolimus. The median overall survival was 21.4 months in the cabozantinib group, compared to 16.5 months in the everolimus group,” Toni Choueiri, M.D., of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

”The hazard ratio of 0.66 does represent a 34% reduction in the rate of deaths,” he said.

An overall survival benefit associated with cabozantinib was consistently observed in all prespecified groups including the groups stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk criteria, the number and duration of prior vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies, and tumor MET status.

An analysis of the same 658 patients enrolled in the METEOR trial, presented at the Genitourinary Cancers Symposium in early 2016, indicated cabozantinib improved progression-free survival, compared with everolimus (7.4 months vs. 3.9 months, HR, 0.52; P less than .001).

Cabozantinib is the only agent to demonstrate a significant benefit in overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate in a phase III trial in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, according to Dr. Choueiri. “Cabozantinib is an important new treatment option for these patients,” he said.

This study was funded by Exelixis. Dr. Choueiri reported serving in advisory roles and receiving research funding and honoraria from multiple companies.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessicolecraig

Stand Up To Cancer is calling for proposals to investigate additional uses for nivolumab, ipilimumab, elotuzumab, and urelumab, as part of a new researcher-industry collaborative program.

As many as four projects will be funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, maker of the four agents, in the range of $1 million to $3 million each, according to a written statement from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The company will provide access to the three drugs already approved for the treatement of various cancers –nivolumab, ipilimumab, and elotuzumab– and to urelumab, an investigational agent that is currently in early clinical trials.

Proposals can include the study of one or more of the products, alone or in combination with other treatments, and may include products from other companies, as well as explore potential new uses for the drug(s), AACR said in the statement.

Nivolumab (Opdivo) is currently approved to treat advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and classical Hodgkin lymphoma; Ipilimumab (Yervoy) is approved to treat melanoma; and elotuzumab (Empliciti) is approved to treat multiple myeloma, in conjunction with other drugs. Urelumab is being evaluated as a treatment for a range of cancers, including some hematological cancers, advanced colorectal cancer, and head and neck cancers.

The Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) Catalyst program was launched in April to “use funding and materials from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and medical devices industries to accelerate research on cancer prevention, detection, and treatment,” according to a written statement from SU2C. Founding collaborators in addition to Bristol-Myers Squibb include Merck and Genentech.

The Catalyst projects must follow the SU2C model be carried out by a collaborative team, and be designed to accelerate the clinical use of therapeutic agents within the 3-year term of the grant, and to deliver near-term patient benefit.

The Request for Proposal for the Bristol-Myers Squibb agents is available at proposalCENTRAL, with proposals due by noon ET Monday, Aug. 15.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

Stand Up To Cancer is calling for proposals to investigate additional uses for nivolumab, ipilimumab, elotuzumab, and urelumab, as part of a new researcher-industry collaborative program.

As many as four projects will be funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, maker of the four agents, in the range of $1 million to $3 million each, according to a written statement from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The company will provide access to the three drugs already approved for the treatement of various cancers –nivolumab, ipilimumab, and elotuzumab– and to urelumab, an investigational agent that is currently in early clinical trials.

Proposals can include the study of one or more of the products, alone or in combination with other treatments, and may include products from other companies, as well as explore potential new uses for the drug(s), AACR said in the statement.

Nivolumab (Opdivo) is currently approved to treat advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and classical Hodgkin lymphoma; Ipilimumab (Yervoy) is approved to treat melanoma; and elotuzumab (Empliciti) is approved to treat multiple myeloma, in conjunction with other drugs. Urelumab is being evaluated as a treatment for a range of cancers, including some hematological cancers, advanced colorectal cancer, and head and neck cancers.

The Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) Catalyst program was launched in April to “use funding and materials from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and medical devices industries to accelerate research on cancer prevention, detection, and treatment,” according to a written statement from SU2C. Founding collaborators in addition to Bristol-Myers Squibb include Merck and Genentech.

The Catalyst projects must follow the SU2C model be carried out by a collaborative team, and be designed to accelerate the clinical use of therapeutic agents within the 3-year term of the grant, and to deliver near-term patient benefit.

The Request for Proposal for the Bristol-Myers Squibb agents is available at proposalCENTRAL, with proposals due by noon ET Monday, Aug. 15.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

Stand Up To Cancer is calling for proposals to investigate additional uses for nivolumab, ipilimumab, elotuzumab, and urelumab, as part of a new researcher-industry collaborative program.

As many as four projects will be funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, maker of the four agents, in the range of $1 million to $3 million each, according to a written statement from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The company will provide access to the three drugs already approved for the treatement of various cancers –nivolumab, ipilimumab, and elotuzumab– and to urelumab, an investigational agent that is currently in early clinical trials.

Proposals can include the study of one or more of the products, alone or in combination with other treatments, and may include products from other companies, as well as explore potential new uses for the drug(s), AACR said in the statement.

Nivolumab (Opdivo) is currently approved to treat advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and classical Hodgkin lymphoma; Ipilimumab (Yervoy) is approved to treat melanoma; and elotuzumab (Empliciti) is approved to treat multiple myeloma, in conjunction with other drugs. Urelumab is being evaluated as a treatment for a range of cancers, including some hematological cancers, advanced colorectal cancer, and head and neck cancers.

The Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) Catalyst program was launched in April to “use funding and materials from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and medical devices industries to accelerate research on cancer prevention, detection, and treatment,” according to a written statement from SU2C. Founding collaborators in addition to Bristol-Myers Squibb include Merck and Genentech.

The Catalyst projects must follow the SU2C model be carried out by a collaborative team, and be designed to accelerate the clinical use of therapeutic agents within the 3-year term of the grant, and to deliver near-term patient benefit.

The Request for Proposal for the Bristol-Myers Squibb agents is available at proposalCENTRAL, with proposals due by noon ET Monday, Aug. 15.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

CHICAGO – Combining two immunotherapies, one inhibiting immune suppression and the other stimulating immune activation, is well tolerated and shows activity for a variety of solid tumor types, according to a phase I trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.

Investigators enrolled 51 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors of any type after progression on standard therapy to a phase Ib dose-escalation study using atezolizumab, a monoclonal antibody checkpoint inhibitor that targets PD-L1, in combination with MOXR0916 (MOXR), an agonist IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting OX40, a costimulatory receptor. Atezolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in May 2016 for use in certain patients with urothelial carcinoma. There were 28 patients in a dose-escalation cohort of the study and 23 in a serial biopsy cohort. The dose of the drug combination was started at 12 mg and escalated to understand pharmacodynamic changes in the tumors.

“The pharmacokinetics of both MOXR0916 and atezolizumab were similar to their single-agent data, suggesting no interaction,” reported Dr. Jeffrey Infante of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

The drug combination was well tolerated through the entire escalation range of MOXR. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and no maximal tolerated dose was reached. There were also no drug-related deaths or grade 4 toxicities or drug-related treatment discontinuations. One case of grade 3 pneumonitis, successfully managed with methylprednisolone and antibiotics, occurred at the MOXR 40-mg dose on cycle 4 of treatment in a patient with non–small-cell lung cancer, he said.

About half the patients (53%) experienced any form of adverse event on the drug combination, and only 8% were grade 2 or 3. There were very few adverse events of any one type, and they did not appear to cluster among patients on the higher MOXR doses. The most prevalent adverse events were nausea, fever, fatigue, and rash, and each was in the 8%-14% range and almost always grade 1.

Many patients showed efficacy of the regimens out to 6-7 cycles regardless of tumor type, and 8 of the 51 patients were still receiving the therapy past cycle 7 with partial responses.

The stimulatory molecule OX40 is not normally expressed on T cells, but it is expressed when antigen interacts with the T-cell receptor, and it can then interact with its ligand, OX40L. The result is production of inflammatory cytokines such as gamma-interferon, activation and survival of effector T cells, and production of memory T cells. At the same time, OX40 activity blocks the suppressive function of regulatory T cells.

“So a molecule that can be a cancer therapeutic such as an OX40 agonist has dual mechanisms of action,” Dr. Infante said. “It can costimulate effector T cells and at the same time inhibit regulatory T cells. Furthermore, there is a reduced risk of toxicity, potentially, as its activity is linked to antigen recognition.”

There is good rationale for using an OX40 agonist such as MOXR, either for its immune stimulatory function or to deactivate immune suppression by regulatory T cells, or both, said discussant Dr. Jedd Wolchok, chief, melanoma and immunotherapeutics service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Infante’s dose-escalation study was “very nicely designed and showed quite good safety,” Dr. Wolchok said, though one thing he would have liked to have seen was a quantification of regulatory T cells in tumor biopsies.

“This [study] is very important considering that this is an agonist antibody, and the agonist agents need to be dosed very deliberatively, as was done here, to ensure safety of patients,” Dr. Wolchok said, adding that further research needs to target “optimal combinatorial partners” and explore other mechanistic biomarkers.

MOXR was given in this trial at escalating doses on a 3+3 design (0.8-1,200 mg) on the same day as atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV once every 3 weeks with a 21-day window for assessment of MOXR dose-limiting toxicities. MOXR doses of 300 mg maintained trough concentrations sufficient to saturate OX40 receptors. An expansion regimen using 300 mg MOXR with atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks is underway and will assess efficacy in the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer.

The study was sponsored by Roche. Dr. Infante reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Wolchok owns stock in Potenza Therapeutics and Vesuvius Pharmaceuticals, has received travel expenses and/or has an advisory role with several other companies, and is a coinventor on an issued patent for DNA vaccines for the treatment of cancer in companion animals.

CHICAGO – Combining two immunotherapies, one inhibiting immune suppression and the other stimulating immune activation, is well tolerated and shows activity for a variety of solid tumor types, according to a phase I trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.

Investigators enrolled 51 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors of any type after progression on standard therapy to a phase Ib dose-escalation study using atezolizumab, a monoclonal antibody checkpoint inhibitor that targets PD-L1, in combination with MOXR0916 (MOXR), an agonist IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting OX40, a costimulatory receptor. Atezolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in May 2016 for use in certain patients with urothelial carcinoma. There were 28 patients in a dose-escalation cohort of the study and 23 in a serial biopsy cohort. The dose of the drug combination was started at 12 mg and escalated to understand pharmacodynamic changes in the tumors.

“The pharmacokinetics of both MOXR0916 and atezolizumab were similar to their single-agent data, suggesting no interaction,” reported Dr. Jeffrey Infante of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

The drug combination was well tolerated through the entire escalation range of MOXR. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and no maximal tolerated dose was reached. There were also no drug-related deaths or grade 4 toxicities or drug-related treatment discontinuations. One case of grade 3 pneumonitis, successfully managed with methylprednisolone and antibiotics, occurred at the MOXR 40-mg dose on cycle 4 of treatment in a patient with non–small-cell lung cancer, he said.

About half the patients (53%) experienced any form of adverse event on the drug combination, and only 8% were grade 2 or 3. There were very few adverse events of any one type, and they did not appear to cluster among patients on the higher MOXR doses. The most prevalent adverse events were nausea, fever, fatigue, and rash, and each was in the 8%-14% range and almost always grade 1.

Many patients showed efficacy of the regimens out to 6-7 cycles regardless of tumor type, and 8 of the 51 patients were still receiving the therapy past cycle 7 with partial responses.

The stimulatory molecule OX40 is not normally expressed on T cells, but it is expressed when antigen interacts with the T-cell receptor, and it can then interact with its ligand, OX40L. The result is production of inflammatory cytokines such as gamma-interferon, activation and survival of effector T cells, and production of memory T cells. At the same time, OX40 activity blocks the suppressive function of regulatory T cells.

“So a molecule that can be a cancer therapeutic such as an OX40 agonist has dual mechanisms of action,” Dr. Infante said. “It can costimulate effector T cells and at the same time inhibit regulatory T cells. Furthermore, there is a reduced risk of toxicity, potentially, as its activity is linked to antigen recognition.”

There is good rationale for using an OX40 agonist such as MOXR, either for its immune stimulatory function or to deactivate immune suppression by regulatory T cells, or both, said discussant Dr. Jedd Wolchok, chief, melanoma and immunotherapeutics service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Infante’s dose-escalation study was “very nicely designed and showed quite good safety,” Dr. Wolchok said, though one thing he would have liked to have seen was a quantification of regulatory T cells in tumor biopsies.

“This [study] is very important considering that this is an agonist antibody, and the agonist agents need to be dosed very deliberatively, as was done here, to ensure safety of patients,” Dr. Wolchok said, adding that further research needs to target “optimal combinatorial partners” and explore other mechanistic biomarkers.

MOXR was given in this trial at escalating doses on a 3+3 design (0.8-1,200 mg) on the same day as atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV once every 3 weeks with a 21-day window for assessment of MOXR dose-limiting toxicities. MOXR doses of 300 mg maintained trough concentrations sufficient to saturate OX40 receptors. An expansion regimen using 300 mg MOXR with atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks is underway and will assess efficacy in the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer.

The study was sponsored by Roche. Dr. Infante reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Wolchok owns stock in Potenza Therapeutics and Vesuvius Pharmaceuticals, has received travel expenses and/or has an advisory role with several other companies, and is a coinventor on an issued patent for DNA vaccines for the treatment of cancer in companion animals.

CHICAGO – Combining two immunotherapies, one inhibiting immune suppression and the other stimulating immune activation, is well tolerated and shows activity for a variety of solid tumor types, according to a phase I trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.

Investigators enrolled 51 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors of any type after progression on standard therapy to a phase Ib dose-escalation study using atezolizumab, a monoclonal antibody checkpoint inhibitor that targets PD-L1, in combination with MOXR0916 (MOXR), an agonist IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting OX40, a costimulatory receptor. Atezolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in May 2016 for use in certain patients with urothelial carcinoma. There were 28 patients in a dose-escalation cohort of the study and 23 in a serial biopsy cohort. The dose of the drug combination was started at 12 mg and escalated to understand pharmacodynamic changes in the tumors.

“The pharmacokinetics of both MOXR0916 and atezolizumab were similar to their single-agent data, suggesting no interaction,” reported Dr. Jeffrey Infante of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

The drug combination was well tolerated through the entire escalation range of MOXR. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and no maximal tolerated dose was reached. There were also no drug-related deaths or grade 4 toxicities or drug-related treatment discontinuations. One case of grade 3 pneumonitis, successfully managed with methylprednisolone and antibiotics, occurred at the MOXR 40-mg dose on cycle 4 of treatment in a patient with non–small-cell lung cancer, he said.

About half the patients (53%) experienced any form of adverse event on the drug combination, and only 8% were grade 2 or 3. There were very few adverse events of any one type, and they did not appear to cluster among patients on the higher MOXR doses. The most prevalent adverse events were nausea, fever, fatigue, and rash, and each was in the 8%-14% range and almost always grade 1.

Many patients showed efficacy of the regimens out to 6-7 cycles regardless of tumor type, and 8 of the 51 patients were still receiving the therapy past cycle 7 with partial responses.

The stimulatory molecule OX40 is not normally expressed on T cells, but it is expressed when antigen interacts with the T-cell receptor, and it can then interact with its ligand, OX40L. The result is production of inflammatory cytokines such as gamma-interferon, activation and survival of effector T cells, and production of memory T cells. At the same time, OX40 activity blocks the suppressive function of regulatory T cells.

“So a molecule that can be a cancer therapeutic such as an OX40 agonist has dual mechanisms of action,” Dr. Infante said. “It can costimulate effector T cells and at the same time inhibit regulatory T cells. Furthermore, there is a reduced risk of toxicity, potentially, as its activity is linked to antigen recognition.”

There is good rationale for using an OX40 agonist such as MOXR, either for its immune stimulatory function or to deactivate immune suppression by regulatory T cells, or both, said discussant Dr. Jedd Wolchok, chief, melanoma and immunotherapeutics service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Infante’s dose-escalation study was “very nicely designed and showed quite good safety,” Dr. Wolchok said, though one thing he would have liked to have seen was a quantification of regulatory T cells in tumor biopsies.

“This [study] is very important considering that this is an agonist antibody, and the agonist agents need to be dosed very deliberatively, as was done here, to ensure safety of patients,” Dr. Wolchok said, adding that further research needs to target “optimal combinatorial partners” and explore other mechanistic biomarkers.

MOXR was given in this trial at escalating doses on a 3+3 design (0.8-1,200 mg) on the same day as atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV once every 3 weeks with a 21-day window for assessment of MOXR dose-limiting toxicities. MOXR doses of 300 mg maintained trough concentrations sufficient to saturate OX40 receptors. An expansion regimen using 300 mg MOXR with atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks is underway and will assess efficacy in the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer.

The study was sponsored by Roche. Dr. Infante reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Wolchok owns stock in Potenza Therapeutics and Vesuvius Pharmaceuticals, has received travel expenses and/or has an advisory role with several other companies, and is a coinventor on an issued patent for DNA vaccines for the treatment of cancer in companion animals.