Randomized Phase II Trial of Sapanisertib ± TAK-117 vs. Everolimus in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma After VEGF-Targeted Therapy

MTOR inhibitors; Everolimus; Renal cell carcinomaInhibidores de MTOR; Everolimus; Carcinoma de células renalesInhibidors de MTOR; Everolimus; Carcinoma de cèl·lules renalsBackground Sapanisertib, a dual mTORC1/2 inhibitor, may offer more complete inhibition of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway than mTORC1 inhibitors, such as everolimus. This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of single-agent sapanisertib and sapanisertib plus the PI3Kα inhibitor TAK-117, vs. everolimus in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) that had progressed on or after VEGF-targeted therapy. Materials and Methods Patients with histologically confirmed, advanced ccRCC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent everolimus 10 mg once daily, single-agent sapanisertib 30 mg once weekly, or sapanisertib 4 mg plus TAK-117 200 mg, both once daily for 3 days/week, in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Ninety-five patients were treated with everolimus or sapanisertib (n = 32 each), or sapanisertib plus TAK-117 (n = 31). There were no significant differences in PFS among the 3 groups or across any subgroups. Median PFS was 3.8 months with everolimus vs. 3.6 months with sapanisertib (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.75-2.36), and 3.1 months with sapanisertib plus TAK-117 (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.75-2.52). No significant differences in overall survival were seen among groups. Overall response rate was 16.7%, 0%, and 7.1%, respectively. Discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events were 15.6%, 28.1%, and 29.0%. Conclusion Sapanisertib with or without TAK-117 was less tolerable and did not improve efficacy vs. everolimus in patients with advanced ccRCC who had relapsed after or were refractory to VEGF-targeted therapies. Dual mTORC1/2 inhibition may not be an effective therapeutic approach for these patients.This article is supported by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Lexington, MA, USA

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care and oncology clinical research: an experts’ perspective

COVID-19; Cancer care; Clinical researchCOVID-19; Cura del càncer; Recerca clínicaCOVID-19; Cuidado del cancer; Investigación clínicaThe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic promises to have lasting impacts on cancer clinical trials that could lead to faster patient access to new treatments. In this article, an international panel of oncology experts discusses the lasting impacts of the pandemic on oncology clinical trials and proposes solutions for clinical trial stakeholders, with the support of recent data on worldwide clinical trials collected by IQVIA. These lasting impacts and proposed solutions encompass three topic areas. Firstly, acceleration and implementation of new operational approaches to oncology trials with patient-centric, fully decentralized virtual approaches that include remote assessments via telemedicine and remote devices. Geographical differences in the uptake of remote technology, including telemedicine, are discussed in the article, focusing on the impact of the local adoption of new operational approaches. Secondly, innovative clinical trials. The pandemic has highlighted the need for new trial designs that accelerate research and limit risks and burden for patients while driving optimization of clinical trial objectives and endpoints, while testing is being minimized. Areas of considerations for clinical trial stakeholders are discussed in detail. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the underrepresentation of minority groups in clinical trials; the approach for oncology clinical trials to improve generalizability of efficacy and outcomes data is discussed. Thirdly, a new problem-focused collaborative framework between oncology trial stakeholders, including decision makers, to leverage and further accelerate the innovative approaches in clinical research developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This could shorten timelines for patient access to new treatments by addressing the cultural and technological barriers to adopting new operational approaches and innovative clinical trials. The role of the different stakeholders is described, with the aim of making COVID-19 a catalyst for positive change in oncology clinical research and eventually in cancer care

The impact of prior platinum therapy on survival in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer receiving vinflunine

Background: A phase III trial demonstrated an overall survival advantage with the addition of vinflunine to best supportive care (BSC) in platinum-refractory advanced urothelial cancer. We subsequently examined the impact of an additional 2 years of survival follow-up and evaluated the influence of first-line platinum therapy on survival. Methods: The 357 eligible patients from the phase III study were categorised into two cohorts depending on prior cisplatin treatment: cisplatin or non-cisplatin. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: The majority had received prior cisplatin (70.3%). Survival was higher in the cisplatin group (HR: 0.76; CI 95% 0.58–0.99; P=0.04) irrespective of treatment arm. Multivariate analysis including known prognostic factors (liver involvement, haemoglobin, performance status) and prior platinum administration did not show an independent effect of cisplatin. Vinflunine reduced the risk of death by 24% in the cisplatin-group (HR: 0.76; CI 95% 0.58–0.99; P=0.04) and by 35% in non-cisplatin patients (HR: 0.65; CI 95% 0.41–1.04; P=0.07). Interpretation: Differences in prognostic factors between patients who can receive prior cisplatin and those who cannot may explain the survival differences in patients who undergo second line therapy. Prior cisplatin administration did not diminish the subsequent benefit of vinflunine over BSC

Risk of infections in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and non-RCC patients treated with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors

Background: Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are used in a variety of malignancies. Infections have been reported with these drugs. We performed an up-to-date meta-analysis to further characterise the risk of infections in cancer patients treated with these agents. Methods: Pubmed and oncology conferences' proceedings were searched for studies from January 1966 to June 2012. Studies were limited to phase II and III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of everolimus or temsirolimus reporting on cancer patients with adequate safety profiles. Summary incidences, relative risks (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: A total of 3180 patients were included. The incidence of all-grade and high-grade infections due to mTOR inhibitors was 33.1% (95% CI, 24.5–43.0%) and 5.6% (95% CI, 3.8–8.3%), respectively. Compared with controls, the RR of all-grade and high-grade infections due to mTOR inhibitors was 2.00 (95% CI, 1.76–2.28, P<0.001) and 2.60 (95% CI, 1.54–4.41, P<0.001), respectively. Subgroup analysis found no difference in incidences or risks between everolimus and temsirolimus or between different tumour types (renal cell carcinoma (RCC) vs non-RCC). Infections included respiratory tract (61.7%), genitourinary (29.4%), skin/soft tissue (4.2%), and others (4.9%). Conclusion: Treatment with mTOR inhibitors is associated with a significant increase in risk of infections. Close monitoring for any signs of infections is warranted

COMPARZ Post Hoc Analysis: Characterizing Pazopanib Responders With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background: The phase III COMPARZ study showed noninferior efficacy of pazopanib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this COMPARZ post hoc analysis we characterized pazopanib responders, patient subgroups with better outcomes, and the effect of dose modification on efficacy and safety. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized to pazopanib 800 mg/d (n = 557) or sunitinib 50 mg/d, 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (n = 553). Secondary end points included time to complete response (CR)/partial response (PR); the proportion of patients with CR/PR ≥10 months and progression-free survival (PFS) ≥10 months; efficacy in patients with baseline metastasis; and logistic regression analyses of patient characteristics associated with CR/PR ≥10 months. Median PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and safety were evaluated in patients with or without dose reductions or interruptions lasting ≥7 days. Results: Median time to response was numerically shorter for patients treated with pazopanib versus sunitinib (11.9 vs. 17.4 weeks). Similar percentages of pazopanib and sunitinib patients had CR/PR ≥10 months (14% and 13%, respectively), and PFS ≥10 months (31% and 34%, respectively). For patients without versus with adverse event (AE)-related dose reductions, median PFS, median overall survival, and ORR were 7.3 versus 12.5 months, 21.7 versus 36.8 months, and 22% versus 42% (all P &lt;.0001) for pazopanib, and 5.5 versus 13.8 months, 18.1 versus 38.0 months, and 16% versus 34% (all P &lt;.0001) for sunitinib; results were similar for dose interruptions. Conclusion: Dose modifications when required because of AEs were associated with improved efficacy, suggesting that AEs might be used as a surrogate marker of adequate dosing for individual patients

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care and oncology clinical research: an experts' perspective

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic promises to have lasting impacts on cancer clinical trials that could lead to faster patient access to new treatments. In this article, an international panel of oncology experts discusses the lasting impacts of the pandemic on oncology clinical trials and proposes solutions for clinical trial stakeholders, with the support of recent data on worldwide clinical trials collected by IQVIA. These lasting impacts and proposed solutions encompass three topic areas. Firstly, acceleration and implementation of new operational approaches to oncology trials with patient-centric, fully decentralized virtual approaches that include remote assessments via telemedicine and remote devices. Geographical differences in the uptake of remote technology, including telemedicine, are discussed in the article, focusing on the impact of the local adoption of new operational approaches. Secondly, innovative clinical trials. The pandemic has highlighted the need for new trial designs that accelerate research and limit risks and burden for patients while driving optimization of clinical trial objectives and endpoints, while testing is being minimized. Areas of considerations for clinical trial stakeholders are discussed in detail. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the underrepresentation of minority groups in clinical trials; the approach for oncology clinical trials to improve generalizability of efficacy and outcomes data is discussed. Thirdly, a new problem-focused collaborative framework between oncology trial stakeholders, including decision makers, to leverage and further accelerate the innovative approaches in clinical research developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This could shorten timelines for patient access to new treatments by addressing the cultural and technological barriers to adopting new operational approaches and innovative clinical trials. The role of the different stakeholders is described, with the aim of making COVID-19 a catalyst for positive change in oncology clinical research and eventually in cancer care

IL8 polymorphisms and overall survival in pazopanib- or sunitinib-treated patients with renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated germline single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for association with overall survival (OS) in pazopanib- or sunitinib-treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). METHODS: The discovery analysis tested 27 SNPs within 13 genes from a phase III pazopanib trial (N=241, study 1). Suggestive associations were then pursued in two independent datasets: a phase III trial (COMPARZ) comparing pazopanib vs sunitinib (N=729, study 2) and an observational study of sunitinib-treated patients (N=89, study 3). RESULTS: In study 1, four SNPs showed nominally significant association (P≤0.05) with OS; two of these SNPs (rs1126647, rs4073) in IL8 were associated (P≤0.05) with OS in study 2. Because rs1126647 and rs4073 were highly correlated, only rs1126647 was evaluated in study 3, which also showed association (P≤0.05). In the combined data, rs1126647 was associated with OS after conservative multiple-test adjustment (P=8.8 × 10(-5); variant vs reference allele hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.52), without evidence for heterogeneity of effects between studies or between pazopanib- and sunitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Variant alleles of IL8 polymorphisms are associated with poorer survival outcomes in pazopanib- or sunitinib-treated patients with aRCC. These findings provide insight in aRCC prognosis and may advance our thinking in development of new therapies

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

This randomised phase III trial compared standard of care Everolimus with the anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody Nivolumab in previously treated patients with locally advanced inoperable or metastatic clear cell renal cancer. 810 patients were randomised to receive either Everolimus 10 mg orally daily or 3 mg/kg of Nivolumab intravenously every two weeks. Patients were treated until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Patients could be treated beyond progression if the investigator believed that the patient was gaining clinical benefit. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The median survival was 25 months for Nivolumab and 19.8 months for Everolimus (p=0.002). The objective response rate was higher for Nivolumab (25 versus 5%; p=&#60;0.001).The median progression free survivals were 4.6 & 4.4 months (p=0.11). Grade 3 & 4 treatment related toxicities were observed in 19 & 37% of patients on Nivolumab or Everolimus respectively. In patients with previously treated renal cell carcinoma Nivolumab produced superior survival and more tolerable treatment than Everolimus

Association of immunotherapy and immunosuppression with severe COVID-19 disease in patients with cancer

Background: Cytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality. Patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) and those with immunosuppression may have higher rates of cytokine storm due to immune dysregulation. We sought to evaluate the association of IO and immunosuppression with COVID-19 outcomes and cytokine storm occurrence among patients with cancer and COVID-19, based on data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19). Methods: A registry-based retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients reported to the CCC19 registry from March 2020 to September 2021. The primary outcome was defined as an ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of a cytokine storm using CCC19 variables, defined as biological and clinical evidence of severe inflammation, with end-organ dysfunction (Fajgenbaum D.C. et al., N Engl J Med., 2020). The association of IO or immunosuppression with the outcomes of interest were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression balanced for covariate distributions through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: A total of 10,214 patients were included, among which 482 (4.7%) received IO, 3,715 (36.4%) received non-IO systemic therapies, and 6,017 (58.9%) were untreated in the 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. No difference in COVID-19 severity or the development of a cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared to the untreated group (aOR: 0.77; 95%CI:0.45-1.32, and aOR: 1.06; 95%CI:0.42-2.67, respectively). On multivariable analysis, baseline immunosuppression was associated with worse outcomes both in relation to COVID-19 severity (aOR: 1.89; 95%CI:1.51-2.35) and the presence of a cytokine storm (aOR: 1.75; 95%CI:1.30-2.35). Conclusions: Administration of IO was not associated with severe outcomes in patients with cancer and COVID-19, whereas pre-existing baseline immunosuppression appears to be independently associated with worse clinical outcomes including cytokine storm

Avelumab Plus Axitinib as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Long-Term Results from the JAVELIN Renal 100 Phase Ib Trial.

BACKGROUND: Progression-free survival was significantly longer in patients who received avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in a randomized phase III trial. We report long-term safety and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for patients with aRCC from the JAVELIN Renal 100 phase Ib trial (NCT02493751). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase Ib study, patients with untreated aRCC received avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg twice daily or with axitinib for 7 days followed by avelumab plus axitinib. Safety and efficacy were assessed in all patients receiving at least one dose of avelumab or axitinib. RESULTS: Overall, 55 patients were enrolled and treated. Median follow-up was 55.7 months (95% CI, 54.5-58.7). Treatment-related adverse events of any grade or grade ≥3 occurred in 54 (98.2%) and 34 (61.8%) patients, respectively. The confirmed objective response rate was 60.0% (95% CI, 45.9-73.0), including complete response in 10.9% of patients. Median duration of response was 35.9 months (95% CI, 12.7-52.9); the probability of response was 65.8% (95% CI, 46.7-79.4) at 2 years. Median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.3-32.0). Median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 40.8-not estimable); the 5-year overall survival rate was 57.3% (95% CI, 41.2-70.5). CONCLUSION: Five-year follow-up for combination treatment with avelumab plus axitinib in previously untreated patients with aRCC showed long-term clinical activity with no new safety signals, supporting use of this regimen within its approved indication in clinical practice (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02493751)