Search

PURPOSE To determine the value of tumor cell programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as a predictive biomarker of nivolumab monotherapy efficacy in treatment-naive patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and the efficacy of salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with tumors unresponsive to nivolumab monotherapy. METHODS Eligible patients with treatment-naive ccRCC received nivolumab until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completing 96 treatment weeks (part A). Patients with PD before or stable disease at 48 weeks could receive salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (part B). The primary end point was improvement in 1-year progression-free survival in patients with tumor PD-L1 expression > 20% versus 0%. RESULTS One hundred twenty-three patients were enrolled. The objective response rate (ORR) was 34.1% (95% CI, 25.8 to 43.2). ORR by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium category was favorable-risk 57.1%, intermediate-risk/poor-risk 25.0%, and by sarcomatoid features 36.4%. The ORR was 26.9%, 50.0%, and 75.0% for patients with the tumor PD-L1 expression of 0, 1-20, or > 20%, respectively (trend test P value = .002). The median duration of response was 27.6 (19.3 to not reached) months, with 26 of 42 responders including 17 of 20 with favorable-risk disease remaining progression-free. The 1-year progression-free survival was 34.6% and 75.0% in the PD-L1 = 0% and > 20% categories, respectively ( P = .050). Ninety-seven patients with PD or prolonged stable disease were potentially eligible for part B, and 35 were enrolled. The ORR for part B was 11.4%. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 35% of patients on nivolumab and 43% of those on salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab. CONCLUSION Nivolumab monotherapy is active in treatment-naive ccRCC. Although efficacy appears to be less than that of nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with intermediate-risk/poor-risk disease, favorable-risk patients had notable benefit. Efficacy correlated with tumor PD-L1 status. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab was frequently not feasible and of limited benefit.

PURPOSE Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4–blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A ( P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B ( P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Purpose: PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (TC) is associated with response to anti-PD-1-based therapies in some tumor types, but its significance in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is uncertain. We leveraged tumor heterogeneity to identify molecular correlates of TC PD-L1 expression in ccRCC and assessed their role in predicting response to anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Experimental Design: RNA sequencing was performed on paired TC PD-L1 positive and negative areas isolated from eight ccRCC tumors and transcriptomic features associated with PD-L1 status were identified. A cohort of 232 patients with metastatic ccRCC from the randomized CheckMate-025 (CM-025) trial was used to confirm the findings and correlate transcriptomic profiles with clinical outcomes. Results: In both the paired samples and the CM-025 cohort, TC PD-L1 expression was associated with combined overexpression of immune- and cell proliferation–related pathways, upregulation of T-cell activation signatures, and increased tumor-infiltrating immune cells. In the CM-025 cohort, TC PD-L1 expression was not associated with clinical outcomes. A molecular RCC subtype characterized by combined overexpression of immune- and cell proliferation–related pathways (previously defined by unsupervised clustering of transcriptomic data) was enriched in TC PD-L1 positive tumors and displayed longer progression-free survival (HR, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.13–0.83) and higher objective response rate (30% vs. 0%, P = 0.04) on nivolumab compared with everolimus. Conclusions: Both TC-extrinsic (immune-related) and TC-intrinsic (cell proliferation–related) mechanisms are likely intertwined in the regulation of TC PD-L1 expression in ccRCC. The quantitation of these transcriptional programs may better predict benefit from anti-PD-1-based therapy compared with TC PD-L1 expression alone in ccRCC.

PURPOSE Both immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors are approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma treatment and can cause cardiovascular events (CVs); thus, combination therapy could lead to major adverse CV events (MACE). Cardiac serum biomarker assessment and imaging, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) monitoring, can be used to evaluate MACE. METHODS To our knowledge, the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, assessing avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, is the first randomized study of ICI plus VEGFR inhibitor treatment to include prospective serial cardiac monitoring of LVEF and serum cardiac biomarkers. RESULTS MACE (defined as grade ≥ 3 CV AEs) occurred in 31 patients (7.1%) in the combination arm and 17 patients (3.9%) in the sunitinib arm. Patients in the combination arm who had high baseline troponin T values were at higher risk of MACE versus patients with low values (MACE in 6/35 v 7/135, respectively; relative risk, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.19 to 9.22). This association was not observed in patients treated with sunitinib. Other CV baseline risk factors and serum cardiac biomarkers were not significantly predictive for MACE, although a trend toward an association with dyslipidemia was seen in the combination arm. No clinical value of on-treatment routine monitoring of LVEF in relation to MACE was observed. Although LVEF decline was significantly more frequent in the combination arm, most patients recovered, and decline was not associated with other significant cardiac events or symptoms. CONCLUSION Patients with high baseline troponin T levels receiving ICI and VEGFR combinations may need to be monitored more closely for MACE. Routine monitoring of LVEF in asymptomatic patients is not recommended.

Aim: To assess overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma by first-line (1L) targeted therapy (TT) or checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) use, second-line (2L) TT or CPI use, and treatment sequence. Patients & methods: Advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma patients treated with 1L CPI or TT were selected from a real-world, electronic health record-derived database. Results: CPI was associated with improved survival after adjustment for potential confounders (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66–0.87]). Median OS was similar between 2L therapies and among likely treatment sequences. Conclusion: This real-world study demonstrated a survival benefit with 1L CPI versus TT. Analyses of 2L and treatment sequences were unable to detect or rule out clinically relevant differences in OS.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Patients with advanced melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors can experience ongoing disease control after treatment discontinuation without subsequent systemic anticancer therapy. We previously defined a novel outcome, treatment-free survival (TFS), as the time between protocol therapy cessation and subsequent therapy initiation/death. We assessed the effect of established prognostic variables [lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), programmed death ligand 1 status, BRAF mutation status, performance status, and sex] on TFS in different treatment scenarios: treatment until toxicity/progression with frequent early cessation (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), treatment until toxicity/progression with a well-tolerated regimen (nivolumab), and treatment for a short fixed duration (ipilimumab). Data were pooled from 1077 patients with advanced melanoma treated in the CheckMate 069 and 067 trials. TFS was defined as the area between the Kaplan–Meier curves for time to therapy cessation and time to subsequent therapy initiation/death. TFS was estimated by restricted mean (r-mean) survival time at 36 months since randomization. Clinically meaningful TFS (r-mean TFS 3.7–12.7 months) was observed across all patient subgroups. TFS was longest in patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The largest differences in r-mean TFS were observed with LDH in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab and ipilimumab treatment groups (TFS difference 4.7 and 4.9 months, respectively). In the nivolumab group, there was little difference in TFS across subgroups (r-mean TFS 3.7–5.5 months). TFS was sensitive to prognostic subgroup differences; however, duration of treatment affected the sensitivity of TFS. These results provide further support for TFS as a clinical outcome measure.

The broad activity of agents blocking the programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand (the PD-(L)1 axis) revolutionized oncology, offering long-term benefit to patients and even curative responses for tumors that were once associated with dismal prognosis. However, only a minority of patients experience durable clinical benefit with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in most disease settings. Spurred by preclinical and correlative studies to understand mechanisms of non-response to the PD-(L)1 antagonists and by combination studies in animal tumor models, many drug development programs were designed to combine anti-PD-(L)1 with a variety of approved and investigational chemotherapies, tumor-targeted therapies, antiangiogenic therapies, and other immunotherapies. Several immunotherapy combinations improved survival outcomes in a variety of indications including melanoma, lung, kidney, and liver cancer, among others. This immunotherapy renaissance, however, has led to many combinations being advanced to late-stage development without definitive predictive biomarkers, limited phase I and phase II data, or clinical trial designs that are not optimized for demonstrating the unique attributes of immune-related antitumor activity—for example, landmark progression-free survival and overall survival. The decision to activate a study at an individual site is investigator-driven, and generalized frameworks to evaluate the potential for phase III trials in immuno-oncology to yield positive data, particularly to increase the number of curative responses or otherwise advance the field have thus far been lacking. To assist in evaluating the potential value to patients and the immunotherapy field of phase III trials, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) has developed a checklist for investigators, described in this manuscript. Although the checklist focuses on anti-PD-(L)1-based combinations, it may be applied to any regimen in which immune modulation is an important component of the antitumor effect.

Background In phase III TIVO-3 trial, tivozanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the effectiveness of this drug after exposure to other selective VEGFR agents has not yet been defined. Herein, we characterize the clinical efficacy of tivozanib in patients with mRCC previously treated with axitinib. Methods We identified patients from the intention to treat (ITT) population, in the TIVO-3 trial, who received treatment with axitinib before enrolment in the study and evaluated PFS, response rate (RR), and safety. Results Out of 350 patients, 172 (83:89, tivozanib:sorafenib) had received prior treatment with axitinib in TIVO-3. In this subgroup, PFS was 5.5 months with tivozanib and 3.7 months with sorafenib (HR 0.68). RR was 13% and 8% favoring tivozanib. Conclusions Tivozanib is active in the treatment of patients with mRCC who have progressed on prior therapies, including axitinib.

Background In patients with melanoma and asymptomatic brain metastases (MBM), nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an intracranial response rate of 55%. Here, we present the first report for patients who were symptomatic and/or required corticosteroids and updated data for asymptomatic patients. Methods Patients with measurable MBM, 0.5-3.0 cm, were enrolled into Cohort A (asymptomatic) or Cohort B (stable neurologic symptoms and/or receiving corticosteroids). Nivolumab, 1 mg/kg, and ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg, were given intravenously every 3 weeks ×4, followed by nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or 24 months. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (CBR; complete response [CR], partial response [PR], or stable disease ≥6 months). Results Symptomatic patients (N = 18) received a median of one nivolumab and ipilimumab combination dose and had an intracranial CBR of 22.2%. Two of 12 patients on corticosteroids had CR; 2 responded among the 6 not on corticosteroids. Median intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 1.2 and 8.7 months, respectively. In contrast, with 20.6 months of follow-up, we confirmed an intracranial CBR of 58.4% in asymptomatic patients (N = 101); median duration of response, PFS, and OS were not reached. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides durable clinical benefit for asymptomatic patients with MBM and should be considered for first-line therapy. This regimen has limited activity in MBM patients with neurologic symptoms and/or requiring corticosteroids, supporting the need for alternative approaches and methods to reduce the dependency on corticosteroids. Clinical trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320058.

In patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), the extent to which immunotherapy utilization rate varies by comorbidities is unclear. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2015 to 2016, we assessed the association between levels of comorbidity and immunotherapy utilization among mNSCLC patients. Burden of comorbidities was ascertained based on the modified Charlson-Deyo score and categorized as an ordinal variable (0, 1 and ≥2). Immunotherapy utilization was determined based on registry data. Multivariable logistic regressions were employed to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the comorbidity score while adjusting for sociodemographic factors, histopathological subtype, surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, insurance, facility type, and other cancer history. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age and race/ethnicity. Overall, of the 89,030 patients with mNSCLC, 38.6% (N=34,382) had the comorbidity score of ≥1. Most patients were non-Hispanic White (82.3%, N=73,309) and aged ≥65 years (63.2%, N=56,300), with the mean age of 68.4 years (SD=10.6). Only 7.0% (N=6,220) of patients received immunotherapy during 2015–2106. Patients with a comorbidity score of ≥2 had a significantly lower rate of immunotherapy utilization versus those without comorbidities (aOR=0.85, 95% CI=0.78–0.93, p-trend

Background Axitinib plus pembrolizumab showed superior overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) versus sunitinib in a randomised phase III trial in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). We report long-term efficacy and safety of the axitinib/pembrolizumab from the phase I trial (NCT02133742), after 46–55 months from study initiation (data cut-off date, 23rd July 2019). Methods Fifty-two treatment-naive patients with advanced RCC were treated with oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily and intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks. PFS, duration of response (DoR) and OS were summarised using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results At a median follow-up of 42.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.1–44.1), median OS was not reached; 38 (73.1%) patients were alive. The probability of being alive at 4 years was 66.8% (95% CI: 49.1–79.5). Median PFS in the overall population was 23.5 months (95% CI: 15.4–30.4). ORR was 73.1%; five patients had complete response. Median DoR was 22.1 months (95% CI: 15.1–34.5). Grade III/IV adverse events (AEs) were reported in 38 (73.1%) patients and 20 (38.5%) discontinued treatment because of AEs: 17 (32.7%) discontinued axitinib, 13 (25.0%) discontinued pembrolizumab, and 10 (19.2%) discontinued both drugs. Common AEs included diarrhoea (84.6%), fatigue (80.8%), hypertension (53.8%), cough (48.1%) and dysphonia (48.1%). There were no new AE terms reported and no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions In patients with advanced RCC with ~4 years of follow-up, combination axitinib/pembrolizumab continued to demonstrate clinical benefit, with no new safety signals.

With multiple PD-(L)1 inhibitors approved across dozens of indications by the US Food and Drug Administration, the number of patients exposed to these agents in adjuvant, first-line metastatic, second-line metastatic, and refractory treatment settings is increasing rapidly. Although some patients will experience durable benefit, many have either no clinical response or see their disease progress following an initial response to therapy. There is a significant need to identify therapeutic approaches to overcome resistance and confer clinical benefits for these patients. PD-1 pathway blockade has the longest history of use in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Therefore, these settings also have the most extensive clinical experience with resistance. In 2021, six non-profit organizations representing patients with these diseases undertook a year-long effort, culminating in a 2-day workshop (including academic, industry, and regulatory participants) to understand the challenges associated with developing effective therapies for patients previously exposed to anti-PD-(L)1 agents and outline recommendations for designing clinical trials in this setting. This manuscript presents key discussion themes and positions reached through this effort, with a specific focus on the topics of eligibility criteria, comparators, and endpoints, as well as tumor-specific trial design options for combination therapies designed to treat patients with melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC after prior PD-(L)1 pathway blockade.

Background: First-line treatment with immunotherapy alone or in combination with antiangiogenic agents is a standard of care for advanced RCC. Many patients (pts) develop resistance to first-line treatment and effective second-line and beyond options are needed. The von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) gene is inactivated in approximately 90% of RCC cases, which results in the constitutive activation of hypoxia-inducible factor 2α (HIF-2α), a key oncogenic driver in RCC. The first-in-class HIF-2α inhibitor belzutifan has demonstrated promising antitumor activity with manageable safety in previously treated pts with advanced RCC. The cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) pathway has also been implicated in RCC and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. In RCC cell lines, the CDK 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib inhibited cell growth. The addition of CDK 4/6 inhibition had synergistic antiproliferative effects with HIF-2α inhibition in HIF-2α-dependent VHL -/- RCC cell lines. Palbociclib could therefore potentially enhance the efficacy of belzutifan as combination therapy for previously treated pts with advanced RCC. Methods: The two-part, open-label, multicenter, phase 1/2 randomized LITESPARK-024 study (NCT05468697) is intended to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of belzutifan + palbociclib in combination with a modified toxicity probability interval design (Part 1), followed by a direct comparison of belzutifan monotherapy to the combination with respect to safety and efficacy in pts with advanced RCC (Part 2). Pts with histologically confirmed unresectable stage IV RCC with a clear cell component, whose disease progressed on or after having received at least 2 systemic treatments (both an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody and a VEGF receptor-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in sequence or in combination), have measurable disease per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review, and have KPS score of ≥70% will be enrolled. Up to 30 pts will be enrolled into 3 dose groups in Part 1 and will receive belzutifan 120 mg once daily + palbociclib (75, 100, or 125 mg) daily for 21 consecutive days followed by 7 days off. In part 2, approximately 150 pts will be randomly assigned 2:1 to receive belzutifan 120 mg once daily + palbociclib RP2D (21 consecutive days/7 days off) or belzutifan 120 mg once daily. Pts will be stratified by IMDC risk (0 vs 1-2 vs 3-6) and sarcomatoid histology (yes vs no) at randomization in part 2. The primary end point for part 1 is to assess dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events to determine the RP2D of belzutifan + palbociclib. The primary end point for part 2 is ORR per RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment. Secondary end points for part 2 are CBR, DOR, PFS, OS, and safety and tolerability. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. All rights reserved. Citation Format: David F. McDermott, Avivit Peer, Neeraj Agarwal, Michael B. Atkins, Jerry Cornell, Rodolfo F. Perini, Kenneth F. Grossmann, Howard Gurney. The randomized phase 1/2 LITESPARK-024 study of belzutifan with or without palbociclib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT120.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy may vary substantially in their clinical presentation, including natural history, outcomes to treatment, and patterns. The application of clinical guidelines for irAE management can be challenging for practitioners due to a lack of common or consistently applied terminology. Furthermore, given the growing body of clinical experience and published data on irAEs, there is a greater appreciation for the heterogeneous natural histories, responses to treatment, and patterns of these toxicities, which is not currently reflected in irAE guidelines. Furthermore, there are no prospective trial data to inform the management of the distinct presentations of irAEs. Recognizing a need for uniform terminology for the natural history, response to treatment, and patterns of irAEs, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a consensus panel composed of leading international experts from academic medicine, industry, and regulatory agencies. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, the expert panel developed clinical definitions for irAE terminology used in the literature, encompassing terms related to irAE natural history (ie, re-emergent, chronic active, chronic inactive, delayed/late onset), response to treatment (ie, steroid unresponsive, steroid dependent), and patterns (ie, multisystem irAEs). SITC developed these definitions to support the adoption of a standardized vocabulary for irAEs, which will have implications for the uniform application of irAE clinical practice guidelines and to enable future irAE clinical trials.

BackgroundTo determine the efficacy and toxicity of nivolumab monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) and the efficacy of nivolumab/ipilimumab salvage therapy in patients with tumors unresponsive to initial nivolumab monotherapy.MethodsEligible patients with treatment-naïve nccRCC received nivolumab until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completion of 96 weeks of treatment (Part A). Patients with PD prior to, or stable disease (SD) at 48 weeks (prolonged SD) were potentially eligible to receive salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (Part B). Patients were required to submit tissue from a metastatic lesion obtained within 12 months prior to study entry and prior to Part B for correlative studies.Results35 patients with nccRCC were enrolled: 19 (54%) had papillary, 6 (17%) had chromophobe and 10 (29%) had unclassified histology. At median follow-up of 22.9 months, RECIST-defined objective response rate (ORR) was 5 of 35 (14.3% 95% CI 4.8% to 30.3%) (complete response (CR) 2 (5.7%) and partial response (PR) 3 (8.6%)). ORR by histology was: papillary—1/19 (5%); chromophobe—1/6 (17%); and unclassified—3/10 (30%). Nine patients (26%) had tumors with sarcomatoid features with 3 (33%) (2 unclassified and 1 papillary) responding. ORR was 0/18, 3/11 (27%) and 2/6 (33%) for patients with tumor progammed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of >3 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 7/35 (20%) on nivolumab and 7/17 (41%) on salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab with one patient experiencing sudden death.ConclusionsNivolumab monotherapy has limited activity in treatment-naïve nccRCC with most responses (4 of 5) seen in patients with sarcomatoid and/or unclassified tumors. Toxicity is consistent with prior nivolumab studies. Salvage treatment with nivolumab/ipilimumab was provided in half of these patients with minimal activity.Trial registration numberNCT03117309.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma is a biologically heterogeneous disease with multiple treatment options that largely involve immunotherapy and/or anti-angiogenic therapies. The choice of initial and subsequent therapy depends on both clinical and biological considerations. Here, we describe the application of recent data to clinical practice.

Immunotherapy offers deep and durable disease control to some patients, but many tumors do not respond to treatment with single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). One strategy to enhance responses to immunotherapy is via combinations with signal transduction inhibitors, such as antiangiogenic therapies, which not only directly target cancer cells but also could potentially favorably modulate the tumor immune microenvironment. Combination strategies with ICIs have demonstrated enhanced antitumor activity compared with tumor-targeted or antiangiogenic therapy alone in randomized trials in a variety of solid tumor settings, leading to regulatory approval from the US Food and Drug Administration and agencies in other countries for the treatment of endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite improved survival and response rates for some patients when antiangiogenic or targeted therapies are administered with ICIs, many patients continue to progress after combination treatment and urgently need new strategies to address this manifestation of resistance to immunotherapy. Previously, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) published consensus definitions for resistance to single-agent anti-PD-(L)1. To provide guidance for clinical trial design and to support analyses of emerging molecular and immune profiling data surrounding mechanisms of resistance to ICI-based combinations, SITC convened a follow-up workshop in 2021 to develop consensus definitions for resistance to multiagent ICI combinations. This manuscript reports the consensus clinical definitions for combinations of anti-PD-(L)1 ICIs and targeted therapies. Definitions for resistance to ICIs in combination with chemotherapy and with other ICIs will be published in companion volumes to this paper.

The therapeutic landscape for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is rapidly evolving with improved knowledge of the biology of disease leading to the incorporation of a variety of antiangiogenic agents and immunotherapies. In this review, we discuss historical, current, and emerging first line treatment options for patients with advanced ccRCC. These include data with single agent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs): sunitinib, pazopanib and cabozantinib as well as the recently reported results for the combination of lenvatinib and everolimus (mTOR inhibitor). We also discuss results of the nivolumab anti-programmed cell death (PD-1)/ipilimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4) combination as well as emerging front-line data with nivolumab and pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) monotherapy. Finally, we review data supporting recent approvals of TKI and anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) combinations (e.g., axitinib/pembrolizumab, axitinib/avelumab and cabozantinib/nivolumab) and initial outcomes of lenvatinib (multi-kinase inhibitor) and pembrolizumab. With many individual and combination treatment options and the lack of head-to-head comparisons, treatment selection will depend on the goals of therapy (endpoints) and the identification and validation of clinical and tumor-based predictive biomarkers that are linked to the desired treatment endpoints.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., CheckMate 218, a North American expanded access program (EAP), investigated nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Safety and efficacy, including 2-year survival in clinically relevant patient subgroups, are reported. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1, and no prior checkpoint inhibitors. Patients received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 cycles (induction) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (maintenance) until progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 48 weeks. Safety and overall survival (OS) data were collected. This EAP included 754 treated patients from the USA (n = 580) and Canada (n = 174). Median follow-up time was 17.8 months. All-grade and grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 96% and 53% of patients and led to treatment discontinuation in 36% and 26% of patients, respectively. OS rates at 12 and 24 months were 82% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79–84] and 70% (95% CI 66–74), respectively. Twenty-four-month OS rates were 63% in patients aged ≥75 years, 56% in patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, 73% in patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, 70% in patients with BRAF mutant tumors, and 56% in patients with mucosal melanoma. In this EAP, nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated high survival rates and safety outcomes consistent with those from randomized clinical trials, further supporting the use of this combination for advanced melanoma across multiple subgroups.

Purpose: Combined axitinib/pembrolizumab is approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This exploratory analysis examined associations between angiogenic and immune-related biomarkers and outcomes following axitinib/pembrolizumab treatment. Patients and Methods: Prospectively defined retrospective correlative exploratory analyses tested biospecimens from 52 treatment-naïve patients receiving axitinib and pembrolizumab (starting doses 5 mg twice daily and 2 mg/kg respectively, every 3 weeks). Tumor tissue, serum, and whole blood samples were collected at baseline, at cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1), and end of treatment (EOT) for blood-based samples. Clinical outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Higher baseline tumor levels of CD8 showed a trend toward longer PFS (HR 0.4; P = 0.091). Higher baseline serum levels of CXCL10 (P = 0.0197) and CEACAM1 (P = 0.085) showed a trend toward better ORR and longer PFS, respectively. Patients for whom IL6 was not detected at baseline had longer PFS versus patients for whom it was detected (HR 0.4; P = 0.028). At C2D1 and/or EOT, mainly immune-related biomarkers showed any association with better outcomes. The genes CA9 (P = 0.084), HIF1A (P = 0.064), and IFNG (P = 0.073) showed trending associations with ORR, and AKT3 (P = 0.0145), DDX58 (P = 0.0726), GZMA (P = 0.0666), LCN2 (NGAL; P = 0.0267), and PTPN11 (P = 0.0287) with PFS. Conclusions: With combined axitinib/pembrolizumab treatment in patients with aRCC, mostly immune-related biomarkers are associated with better treatment outcomes. This exploratory analysis has identified some candidate biomarkers to consider in future prospective testing.

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

Background Brain metastases are a significant cause of mortality and morbidity for patients with melanoma. We hypothesize that the development of brain metastases may be explained by molecular heterogeneity between primary cutaneous melanoma (PCM) or extracranial (ECM) and brain (MBM) melanoma metastases. Materials and methods We compared next-generation sequencing, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and immunohistochemical staining for PD-L1 expression, among 132 MBM, 745 PCM, and 1190 ECM. Results The most common genetic alterations among MBM included: BRAF (52.4%), NRAS (26.6%), CDKN2A (23.3%), NF1 (18.9%), TP53 (18%), ARID2 (13.8%), SETD2 (11.9%), and PBRM1 (7.5%). Four genes were found with higher frequency among MBM compared to PCM or ECM: BRAF (52.4% v 40.4% v 40.9%), SETD2 (11.9% v 1.9% v 3.9%), PBRM1 (7.5% v 1.6% v 2.6%), and DICER1 (4.4% v 0.6% v 0.4%). MBM showed higher TMB (p = .04) and higher PD-L1 expression (p = .002), compared to PCM. PD-L1 expression was slightly higher among MBM compared to ECM (p = .042), but there was no difference between TMB (p = .21). Conclusions Our findings suggest a unique molecular profile for MBM, including higher rates of BRAF mutations, higher TMB and higher PD-L1 expression, and also implicate chromatin remodeling in the pathogenesis of MBM.

Kidney cancer is one of the 10 most common cancers both in the United States and worldwide. Until this year, there had not previously been a conference focused on translational studies in the broad and heterogeneous group of kidney cancers. Therefore, a group of researchers, clinicians, and patient advocates dedicated to renal cell carcinoma launched the Kidney Cancer Research Summit (KCRS) to spur collaboration and further therapeutic advances in these tumors. This commentary aims to summarize the oral presentations and serve as a record for future iterations of this meeting. The KCRS sessions addressed the tumor microenvironment, novel methods of drug delivery, single cell sequencing strategies, novel immune checkpoint blockade and cellular therapies, predictive biomarkers, and rare variants of kidney cancers. In addition, the meeting included 2 sessions to promote scientific mentoring and kidney cancer research collaborations. A subsequent KCRS will be planned for the fall of 2020.

Kidney cancer has unique features that make this malignancy attractive for therapeutic approaches that target components of the immune system. Immune checkpoint inhibition is a well-established part of kidney cancer treatment, and rapid advances continue to be made in this field. Initial preclinical studies that elucidated the biology of the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) immune checkpoints led to a series of clinical trials that resulted in regulatory approval of nivolumab and the combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Subsequent data led to approvals of combination strategies of immune checkpoint inhibition plus agents that target the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and a shift in the current standard of renal cell carcinoma care. However, controversies remain regarding the optimal therapy selection and treatment strategy for individual patients, which might be eventually overcome by current intensive efforts in biomarker research. That work includes evaluation of tumour cell PD-L1 expression, gene expression signatures, CD8+ T cell density and others. In the future, further advances in the understanding of immune checkpoint biology might reveal new therapeutic targets beyond PD-1, PD-L1 and CTLA-4, as well as new combination approaches. In this Review, Xu et al. provide an overview of mechanisms of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) therapy and its clinical development in patients with kidney cancer, discuss combination ICI strategies and review future directions for ICI in kidney cancer encompassing biomarker and therapeutic target research.

Importance: Interim analyses of the IMmotion151 trial (A Study of Atezolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab Versus Sunitinib in Participants With Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma) reported improved progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor bevacizumab vs the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib. Overall survival (OS) results were immature at interim analyses. Objective: To report the final OS results, safety, and exploratory biomarker analyses of the association of transcriptomic subgroups with OS in the IMmotion151 trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: IMmotion151 was a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial that compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with untreated mRCC. IMmotion151 included patients from 152 academic medical centers and community oncology practices in 21 countries. Adult patients with mRCC with components of clear cell or sarcomatoid histologic features, measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), adequate performance status, hematologic and end organ function, and tumor tissue available for PD-L1 testing were included. IMmotion151 was initiated on May 20, 2015, and the study is ongoing. This final analysis was performed from May 20, 2015, to February 14, 2020. Interventions: Receipt of 1200 mg of intravenous (IV) atezolizumab every 3 weeks and 15 mg/kg of IV bevacizumab every 3 weeks or 50 mg orally once daily of sunitinib (4 weeks on and 2 weeks off). Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary end points were PFS (previously reported) in patients with PD-L1+ disease and OS in the intention-to-treat population. Additional exploratory outcomes included OS in the PD-L1+ population, association with transcriptomic subgroups, and safety. Results: The IMmotion151 trial assessed 915 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Mean (IQR) age was 62 (56-69) years for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 60 (54-66) years for patients receiving sunitinib; 669 (73.1%) were male and 246 (26.9%) were female. The final analysis showed similar median OS in patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in the intention-to-treat (36.1 vs 35.3 months) and PD-L1+(38.7 vs 31.6 months) populations. No new safety signals were reported. The additional exploratory outcome of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib showed improved median OS trends in patients whose tumors were characterized by T-effector/proliferative, proliferative, or small nucleolar RNA transcriptomic profiles (35.4 vs 21.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98). Conclusions and Relevance: The primary end point of PFS was met at interim analyses, although no improvement in OS was observed with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab at the final analysis. Biomarker analyses provided insight into which patients with mRCC may benefit from combined anti-PD-L1 and anti-VEGF therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02420821.

668 Background: Immunosuppressive factors such as regulatory T cells (Tregs) and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) limit the efficacy of immunotherapies. We have previously reported that histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors have antitumor effects in combination with PD-1 inhibition by inhibiting the function of Tregs and MDSCs in preclinical models. We hypothesized that HDAC inhibition may resensitize patients (pts) with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to immunotherapy. Thus, we opened a Phase II clinical study with the HDAC inhibitor entinostat and the immune check point inhibitors nivolumab (nivo) and ipilimumab (ipi) in clear cell RCC pts previously treated with nivo + ipi or nivo alone. Methods: The primary objective was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of this combination strategy in a dose de-escalation, two stage, phase II clinical trial with a safety lead-in. Due to a funder decision, enrollment was halted after completion of accrual to the safety lead in group. Pts received oral entinostat at a dose of 5 mg (dose level 1) or 3 mg (dose level 2) every 7 days, continuously, with nivo at a dose of 3 mg/kg mg IV every three weeks in combination with ipi at a dose of 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks X 4 doses. Then, nivo 480 mg was continued every 4 weeks. Results: A total of 12 pts with prior nivo+ipi or nivo treatments was enrolled. Dose level 1 (5 pts enrolled) was completed with the following DLTs: thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, pneumonitis. Seven pts were enrolled on dose level 2 which was established as the recommended phase II dose. The most common treatment-related toxicities were fatigue, hypophosphatemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. All were transient. Most of the pts had 2 or more prior treatments. Four pts achieved a partial response, with 3 out 4 pts previously treated with nivo alone (ORR 33%; 95% CI 9.9-65.1). The median PFS was 11.1 months (CI 1.3-26.4). We collected blood samples to conduct several correlative studies including flow cytometry and gene expression analysis on peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Conclusions: The preliminary results from this study suggest that the combination of entinostat and nivo+ ipi is relatively well tolerated and may be active in pts with RCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03552380 .

604 Background: Treatment with immunotherapy can be associated with prolonged disease control after discontinuation without the need for further anticancer therapy. Toxicity from therapy can also persist after cessation. TFS with and without toxicity can characterize survival time. Significant TFS was reported for CheckMate 067 trial in pts with metastatic melanoma (Regan et al JITC 2021) and CheckMate 214 trial for pts with aRCC (Regan et al CCR 2021), but treatment was often halted for toxicity rather than a pre-defined treatment endpoint. We therefore sought to assess TFS in the HCRN GU16 260 trial, which was designed to reduce toxicity and to cap immunotherapy duration (Atkins et al JCO 2022). Methods: Data were analyzed from 128 patients (pts) with clear-cell aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab (NIVO) monotherapy for up to 2 years. As part of the protocol, salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (NIVO/IPI) for up to 1 year was provided to eligible patients with disease progression at any point or stable disease at 48 weeks (28% of pts). TFS was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for time from registration to protocol therapy cessation and for time from registration to subsequent therapy initiation or death, estimated from 36-month (mo) mean times. The time on treatment or off treatment with grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was also captured. Results: At 36 mos from enrollment, 68.3% of pts were alive: 96.8% of IMDC favorable-risk (FAV) pts and 56.6% of those with intermediate/poor-risk (I/P), respectively. The 36-mo mean time on protocol therapy was 11.5 mos (16.0 mos for FAV pts and 9.6 mos for I/P pts). The 36-mo mean TFS for the whole population was 9.4 mos. For FAV pts the mean TFS was 12.9 mos, of which TFS with grade 3+ TRAEs was 1.5 mos. For I/P pts, the mean TFS was 8.0 mos, of which TFS with grade 3+ TRAEs was 1.0 mos. At 36 mos, 65.6% of FAV pts and 27.1% of I/P pts were alive and second-line treatment-free. Conclusions: NIVO monotherapy with salvage NIVO/IPI in non-responders is an active treatment approach in treatment-naïve pts with aRCC and results in substantial TFS and toxicity-free TFS. TFS was particularly noted in pts with FAV disease, further supporting the use of an immunotherapy-only regimen in this population. Clinical trial information: NCT03117309 . [Table: see text]

TPS742 Background: The first-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) includes an immuno-oncology (IO) based combination. The current standard regimens include a PD-1 inhibitor plus either (1) an anti-CTLA-4 inhibitor (IO/IO), or (2) an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (IO/TKI). Currently, there is no level 1 evidence to guide physician’s choice between an IO/IO versus IO/TKI combination. The phase III IMmotion 151 trial performed RNA-seq from 823 ccRCC tumors and established seven biologically distinct gene expression clusters of ccRCC (Motzer and Rini et al., Cancer Cell 2020). The seven clusters showed differential responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor and may serve as a predictive biomarker to select frontline treatment. Methods: This trial is a phase II, multicenter study using the established biologic clusters to assign patients with mccRCC to either an IO/IO (ipilimumab/nivolumab) or an IO/TKI (nivolumab/cabozantinib) regimen. Patients diagnosed with mccRCC without prior systemic therapy (including in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting) and at least one measurable lesion as defined by RECIST 1.1 are eligible for enrollment. RNA-seq will be performed on metastatic tumor specimens and used to assign tumor clusters. Patients with cluster 1/2 tumors will be assigned to the nivolumab/cabozantinib arm; patients with cluster 4/5 tumors will be assigned to the ipilimumab/nivolumab arm. Cluster 3/6/7 will be excluded. The primary endpoint is overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. The hypothesis is that use of tumor clusters to assign front-line therapy to either nivolumab/cabozantinib or ipilimumab/nivolumab will lead to a 20% greater ORR compared to unselected historical controls in CheckMate 9ER (ORR: 55%) or CheckMate 214 (ORR: 40%). This trial adopts Simon’s MiniMax two-stage design (power: 80%, one-sided α: 0.1). For the nivolumab/cabozantinib arm, stage I will enroll 12 eligible patients. If there are 7 or more responders in the first 12 patients, the trial will continue for stage II to enroll additional 14 patients (total n=26). The primary endpoint will be met if there are 18 or more responders (ORR ≥75%). For the ipilimumab/nivolumab arm, stage I will enroll 16 eligible patients. If there are 7 or more responders in the first 16 patients, the trial will continue for stage II to enroll additional 12 patients (total n=28). The primary endpoint will be met if there are 15 or more responders (ORR ≥60%). Key secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), depth of response>80%, and rate of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). This trial is funded by the Department of Defense Kidney Cancer Research Program Clinical Trial Award (W81XWH-22-1-1033) (NCT05361720). Clinical trial information: NCT05361720 .

TPS747 Background: The combination of immunotherapy with antiangiogenic agents is a well-established first-line treatment option for patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but many pts develop resistance, and effective second- or subsequent-line options are needed. The von Hippel-Lindau ( VHL) gene is inactivated in approximately 90% of RCC cases, which results in the constitutive activation of hypoxia-inducible factor 2α (HIF-2α) signaling. HIF-2α is involved in angiogenesis, tumor growth, proliferation, and metastasis, and is a key oncogenic driver in RCC. The HIF-2α inhibitor belzutifan has demonstrated promising antitumor activity with manageable safety in pts with heavily pretreated RCC. The cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) pathway is altered in several cancer types, including RCC, and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. The CDK 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib inhibited cell growth in RCC cell lines, and the antiproliferative effects of CDK 4/6 inhibition were synergistic with HIF-2α inhibition in HIF-2α–dependent VHL -/- clear cell RCC cell lines. We hypothesized palbociclib could potentially enhance the efficacy of belzutifan as combination therapy for previously treated pts with advanced RCC. Methods: LITESPARK-024 (NCT05468697) is an open-label, multicenter, phase 1/2 randomized study of belzutifan + palbociclib versus belzutifan monotherapy in pts with advanced RCC. Pts must have histologically confirmed unresectable stage IV RCC with a clear cell component, received at least 2 prior systemic regimens (both an anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody and a VEGF receptor–targeted TKI, in sequence or in combination), have measurable disease per RECIST v1.1 by BICR, have KPS score of ≥70%, and have radiographic disease progression on or after the most recent regimen per investigator. Part 1 will evaluate the safety of belzutifan + palbociclib and determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for the combination using a modified toxicity probability interval design. Part 2 will evaluate the safety and efficacy of belzutifan + palbociclib versus belzutifan alone. In part 1, ≤30 pts will be enrolled into 3 dose groups and receive belzutifan 120 mg once daily + palbociclib (75, 100, or 125 mg) daily for 21 consecutive days followed by 7 days off. In part 2, approximately 150 pts will be randomly assigned 2:1 to receive belzutifan 120 mg once daily + palbociclib RP2D (21 consecutive days/7 days off) or belzutifan 120 mg once daily. Pts will be stratified by IMDC risk (0 vs 1-2 vs 3-6) and sarcomatoid histology (yes vs no) at randomization in part 2. The primary end point for part 1 is to assess dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events to determine the RP2D of belzutifan + palbociclib. The primary end point for part 2 is ORR per RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment. Secondary end points for part 2 are clinical benefit rate, DOR, PFS, OS, and safety and tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT05468697 .

698 Background: Nivolumab (nivo) monotherapy demonstrated anti-tumor activity in treatment-naïve renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Part A of HCRN GU16-260 across all IMDC groups and in multiple histologies. Patient tumor samples were collected to characterize the tumor-immune microenvironmental (TME) determinants of effective anti-tumor immunity with nivo. Methods: Eligible patients (with clear cell or non-clear cell histology) underwent tumor biopsy prior to and/or at resistance to nivo monotherapy. Fresh tissue fragments were cryopreserved locally and centrally processed to extract viable single-cells from the RCC TME. Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) and T cell receptor (TCR)-sequencing (scTCR-seq) was performed on all tumor samples. Gene expression signatures discovered through scRNA-seq were used to interrogate previously published bulk transcriptomic data from the CheckMate-009/010/025 trials of nivo in the treatment-refractory setting. Results: In total, 72,730 viable single-cells (56,900 immune and 15,830 tumor or stromal cells) were sequenced from 17 patients (8 with baseline only, 7 with progression only, and 2 with paired baseline and progression samples) across 7 trial sites. Trajectory inference analysis of tumor-infiltrating T cells revealed a bifurcating trajectory, starting with naïve T cells and ending either in PMCH+ terminally exhausted CD8+ T cells or SLAMF7+ CD8+ T cells. Notably, the SLAMF7+ T cell population expressed high levels of cytotoxic genes (including GZMA, GZMB, GNLY) and markers of tissue residency ( ZNF683/HOBIT and ITGAE/CD103), and had a restricted TCR diversity (normalized Shannon index = 0.57). Among patients with at least 100 sequenced T cells (n = 14), a higher percentage of SLAMF7+ CD8+ T cells (relative to total T cells) was associated with primary resistance (progressive disease [PD] as best response) to nivo (mean percentage in PD [n = 4] patients 32.7%; stable disease [n = 4] patients, 9.1%; complete or partial response [CR/PR; n = 6] patients, 2.2%; p = 0.019 for CR/PR vs PD). A signature derived using genes expressed in the T cell trajectory branch containing the SLAMF7+ CD8+ T cell population was used to interrogate bulk RNA-seq data from 172 pre-treatment tumors from the nivo arms of the CheckMate-009/010/025 trials. The signature score was enriched in patients with PD compared to CR/PR as best response (p = 0.032). Analysis of bulk whole exome sequencing and RNA-seq from patients enrolled in the HCRN GU16-260 is pending. Conclusions: Single-cell transcriptomic analysis uncovered a SLAMF7+ CD8 + T cell population with markers of cytotoxicity and tissue residency that was associated with resistance to nivo monotherapy in RCC. Further, the study highlights that scRNA-seq is a viable scientific strategy for deep correlative analysis in multicenter clinical trials.

Anti-angiogenic agents, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and anti-VEGF antibodies, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are standard treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). In the past, these agents were administered as sequential monotherapies. Recently, combinations of anti-angiogenic agents and CPIs have been approved for the treatment of aRCC, based on evidence that they provide superior efficacy when compared with sunitinib monotherapy. Here we explore the possible mechanisms of action of these combinations, including a review of relevant preclinical data and clinical evidence in patients with aRCC. We also ask whether the benefit is additive or synergistic, and, thus, whether concomitant administration is preferred over sequential monotherapy. Further research is needed to understand how combinations of anti-angiogenic agents with CPIs compare with CPI monotherapy or combination therapy (e.g., nivolumab and ipilimumab), and whether the long-term benefit observed in a subset of patients treated with CPI combinations will also be realised in patients treated with an anti-angiogenic therapy and a CPI. Additional research is also needed to establish whether other elements of the tumour microenvironment also need to be targeted to optimise treatment efficacy, and to identify biomarkers of response to inform personalised treatment using combination therapies.

PURPOSE To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. METHODS A multidisciplinary panel of medical oncology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialists, and advocacy experts was convened to develop the guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on evidence published from 2017 to 2021. RESULTS The systematic review identified 35 eligible publications. Because of the paucity of high-quality evidence, recommendations are based on expert consensus. RECOMMENDATIONS The multidisciplinary team issued recommendations to aid in the recognition, workup, evaluation, and management of the most common CAR T-cell–related toxicities, including cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, B-cell aplasia, cytopenias, and infections. Management of short-term toxicities associated with CAR T cells begins with supportive care for most patients, but may require pharmacologic interventions for those without adequate response. Management of patients with prolonged or severe CAR T-cell–associated cytokine release syndrome includes treatment with tocilizumab with or without a corticosteroid. On the basis of the potential for rapid decline, patients with moderate to severe immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome should be managed with corticosteroids and supportive care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

PURPOSE To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) therapy. METHODS A multidisciplinary panel of medical oncology, dermatology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, pulmonology, endocrinology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialists, and advocacy experts was convened to update the guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on evidence published from 2017 through 2021. RESULTS A total of 175 studies met the eligibility criteria of the systematic review and were pertinent to the development of the recommendations. Because of the paucity of high-quality evidence, recommendations are based on expert consensus. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for specific organ system–based toxicity diagnosis and management are presented. While management varies according to the organ system affected, in general, ICPi therapy should be continued with close monitoring for grade 1 toxicities, except for some neurologic, hematologic, and cardiac toxicities. ICPi therapy may be suspended for most grade 2 toxicities, with consideration of resuming when symptoms revert ≤ grade 1. Corticosteroids may be administered. Grade 3 toxicities generally warrant suspension of ICPis and the initiation of high-dose corticosteroids. Corticosteroids should be tapered over the course of at least 4-6 weeks. Some refractory cases may require other immunosuppressive therapy. In general, permanent discontinuation of ICPis is recommended with grade 4 toxicities, except for endocrinopathies that have been controlled by hormone replacement. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Subha Madhavan (S.M.) and Anas Belouali (A.B.) were not included as authors in the published article [...]

Purpose: Patients discontinuing immuno-oncology regimens may experience periods of disease control without need for ongoing anticancer therapy, but toxicity may persist. We describe treatment-free survival (TFS), with and without toxicity. Patients and Methods: Data were analyzed from the randomized phase III CheckMate 214 trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 550) versus sunitinib (n = 546) for treatment-naïve, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). TFS was estimated by the 42-month restricted mean times defined by the area between Kaplan–Meier curves for two time-to-event endpoints defined from randomization: time to protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. TFS was subdivided as TFS with and without toxicity by counting days with ≥1 grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). Results: At 42 months since randomization, 52% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 39% of sunitinib intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive; 18% and 5% surviving treatment-free, respectively. Among favorable-risk patients, 70% and 73% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and sunitinib patients were alive; 20% and 9% treatment-free. Over the 42-month period, mean TFS was over twice as long after nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk (6.9 vs. 3.1 months) and three times as long for favorable-risk patients (11.0 vs. 3.7 months). Mean TFS with grade ≥3 TRAEs was a small proportion of time for both treatments (0.6 vs. 0.3 months after nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk, and 0.9 vs. 0.3 months for favorable-risk patients). Conclusions: Patients initiating first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for aRCC spent more survival time treatment-free without toxicity versus those on sunitinib, regardless of risk group.

Purpose: The use of VEGFR TKIs for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains controversial. We investigated the effects of adjuvant VEGFR TKIs on circulating cytokines in the ECOG-ACRIN 2805 (ASSURE) trial. Experimental Design: Patients with resected high-risk RCC were randomized to sunitinib, sorafenib, or placebo. Plasma from 413 patients was analyzed from post-nephrectomy baseline, 4 weeks, and 6 weeks after treatment initiation. Mixed effects and Cox proportional hazards models were used to test for changes in circulating cytokines and associations between disease-free survival (DFS) and cytokine levels. Results: VEGF and PlGF increased after 4 weeks on sunitinib or sorafenib (P < 0.0001 for both) and returned to baseline at 6 weeks on sunitinib (corresponding to the break in the sunitinib schedule) but not sorafenib (which was administered continuously). sFLT-1 decreased after 4 weeks on sunitinib and 6 weeks on sorafenib (P < 0.0001). sVEGFR-2 decreased after both 4 and 6 weeks of treatment on sunitinib or sorafenib (P < 0.0001). Patients receiving placebo had no significant changes in cytokine levels. CXCL10 was elevated at 4 and 6 weeks on sunitinib and sorafenib but not on placebo. Higher baseline CXCL10 was associated with worse DFS (HR 1.41 per log increase in CXCL10, Bonferroni-adjusted P = 0.003). This remained significant after adjustment for T-stage, Fuhrman grade, and ECOG performance status. Conclusions: Among patients treated with adjuvant VEGFR TKIs for RCC, drug–host interactions mediate changes in circulating cytokines. Elevated baseline CXCL10 was associated with worse DFS. Studies to understand functional consequences of these changes are under way.

Purpose: Immune-related RECIST (irRECIST) were designed to capture atypical responses seen with immunotherapy. We hypothesized that, in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC), candidate biomarkers for nivolumab response would show improved association with clinical endpoints capturing atypical responders (irRECIST) compared with standard clinical endpoints (RECISTv1.1). Experimental Design: Endpoints based on RECISTv1.1 [objective response rate (ORR)/progression-free survival (PFS)] or irRECIST [immune-related ORR (irORR)/immune-related PFS (irPFS)] were compared in patients enrolled in the CheckMate-010 trial. Pretreatment tumors were analyzed by PD-L1 and PD-L2 IHC, and by multiplex immunofluorescence for CD8, PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3. T-cell activation signatures were assessed by RNA sequencing. Results: Median irPFS was significantly longer than median PFS. irORR was not significantly different from ORR, but immune-related progressive disease (irPD) rate was significantly lower than progressive disease (PD) rate. Tumor cell (TC) PD-L1 expression was not associated with PFS or ORR, but patients with TC PD-L1 ≥1% had longer median irPFS and higher irORR. High percentage of CD8+ tumor-infiltrating cells (TIC) that are PD-1+TIM-3−LAG-3− (% CD8+PD-1+TIM-3−LAG-3− TIC) correlated with high levels of T-cell activation and was associated with longer median irPFS and higher irORR. Notably, combination of TC PD-L1 expression with % CD8+PD-1+TIM-3−LAG-3− TIC identified three groups of patients for which irPFS and irORR were significantly different. Conclusions: Atypical responders to nivolumab were identified in the CheckMate-010 trial. We observed improved association of candidate biomarkers for nivolumab response with endpoints defined by irRECIST compared with RECISTv1.1. TC PD-L1 expression in combination with PD-1 expression on CD8+ TIC may predict outcome on nivolumab in mccRCC.

Under current AJCC staging criteria, stage IIC patients paradoxically have worse outcomes than IIIA patients despite the lack of nodal metastatic disease. This study sought to identify additional clinicopathologic characteristics correlated with worse patient outcomes. Retrospective chart review of stage IIC and IIIA melanoma patients were evaluated between 1995 and 2011 with clinical follow-up through 2015. Records were reviewed for demographics, clinical characteristics, and tumor pathology. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's rank-sum test were used to assess group differences. Clinicopathologic features were evaluated relative to overall survival (OS), time to distant metastases, and local/regional recurrence. Overall, 128 patients were included (45 stage IIC and 83 stage IIIA) with a median follow-up time of 5.7 years. Compared with stage IIIA patients, stage IIC patients were older, and their melanomas were more likely to be nodular, amelanotic, thicker, have higher mitotic rate, tumor lymphocytic infiltrate, no radial growth phase, and less likely to have associated precursor lesions. Stage IIC patients had shorter OS and time to distant metastases; multivariate regression revealed that older age (>55 years) and mitotic rate (>5 mitoses/mm) were independent predictors of OS. Melanomas in stage IIC disease may be biologically distinct from those that are seen in stage IIIA. While sentinel node biopsies remain the standard-of-care, these results suggest that clinicians may want to assess the clinicopathologic characteristics described above to aggressively counsel, screen for distant disease, and consider adjuvant therapy, in particular for older patients and higher mitotic rates in thicker primary tumors, regardless of nodal status.

Background: Acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) is a rare melanoma subtype found on the palms, soles and nailbeds. Outcomes are poor for patients with advanced ALM, and novel treatment approaches are needed. Here, we seek to explore the global genomic and transcriptomic landscape of ALM. Methods: A total of 699 primary CM (non-ALM cutaneous melanoma) and 18 primary ALM samples underwent next generation sequencing of DNA (592 Gene Panel, NextSeq, or WES, NovaSeq), and whole transcriptome sequencing (NovaSeq, WTS). Wilcoxon, Fisher’s exact test were used to determine statistical significance (displayed as p value without and q value with multi comparison correction). xCell, HLA subtyping, neoantigen load (HBA: high binding affinity; IBA: intermediate binding affinity; LBA: low binding affinity), Interferon gamma score (IFNγ), MAPK pathway activity score (MPAS), and Innate anti-PD-1 Resistance score (IPRES) were calculated by mRNA expression. Global differentially regulated genes were assessed via limma R package (C: log fold change). Results: The most common alterations in ALM included NRAS (22.2%), NF1 (20.0%), BRAF (11.1%) and CDKN2A (11.1%) mutations, and EMSY (22.2%), ELL (11.1%), MAML2 (11.1%), MRE11(11.1%) and PIK3R2 (11.1%) amplifications. ALM had lower TMB (1.5 v 9 Mut/Mb, q Conclusion: ALM has distinct immunologic features, including upregulation of HLA-G, as well as lower MAPK activation in ALM, compared to CM, highlighting the need for novel therapeutic approaches in the treatment of this rare subtype. Citation Format: Gino K. In, Jun Yin, Phillip Walker, Justin Moser, Joanne Xiu, Kelsey Poorman, Geoffery T. Gibney, Matthew Oberley, Thuy Phung, Leonel F. Hernandez-Aya, Jose Lutzky, Wolfgang Michael Korn, Michael B. Atkins. Comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic profiling of acral lentiginous melanoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 6130.

Brain metastases are the most frequent malignancies in the brain and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Melanoma brain metastases (MBM) occur in most patients with advanced melanoma and are challenging to treat. Our understanding of the treatment-naïve landscape of MBM is still rudimentary, and there are no site-specific molecular therapies available. To gain comprehensive insights into the niche-specific biology of MBM, we performed multi-modal profiling of fresh and frozen samples using single-cell RNA-seq, single-cell TCR-seq, single-nuclei RNA-seq, and spatial transcriptional profiling. We evolved single-nucleus RNA-seq processing methods to enable profiling of minute amounts of archival, frozen specimens and compared data quality and structure between matched fresh and frozen MBM. We curated a treatment-naïve single-transcriptome atlas of MBM, collected either fresh samples over 1 year or profiled frozen samples dating back more than 15 years, and compared these samples to extracranial melanoma metastases (ECMM). In total, we profiled 25 samples with more than 114,000 transcriptomes. We identified more than 20 different cell types, including diverse tumor-infiltrating T-cell subsets and rare dendritic cell types, and tissue-specific cell types, such as activated microglia. Tumor cells in MBM showed an increase in copy number alterations (CNAs) compared to ECMM, which we validated using an external dataset of whole exome sequencing (WES) data including both MBM and ECMM. MBM-derived tumor cells show enrichment of genes involved in neuronal development and function, and site-specific metabolic programs (e.g., oxidative phosphorylation). Comparison with an external bulk RNA-seq dataset validated enriched key genes in MBM and ECMM as putative dependencies. We recovered cell-cell interactions between tumor and brain-resident cells involved in brain development, homeostasis, and disease. Similar to ECMM, the tumor microenvironment of MBM contained CD8+ T cells across a spectrum of differentiation, exhaustion and expansion, which was associated with loss of TCF7 expression and adoption of a TOX+ cell state. CD4+ T cells included T regulatory, T helper and T follicular-helper-like expression profiles. Plasma cells showed spatially localized expansion and limited heterogeneity. Myeloid cells largely adopted pro-tumorigenic cell states, including microglia, the brain-resident myeloid cells, which showed an activation trajectory characterized by expression of SPP1 (osteopontin). Spatial transcriptional analysis revealed restricted expression of antigen presentation genes with only a subset of these locations showing a type I interferon response. In summary, this work presents a multi-modal single-cell approach to dissect and compare the landscape of treatment-naïve MBM and ECMM. Citation Format: Johannes C. Melms, Jana Biermann, Amit Dipak Amin, Yiping Wang, Somnath Tagore, Massimo Andreatta, Ajay Nair, Meri Rogava, Patricia Ho, Lindsay A. Caprio, Zachary H. Walsh, Shivem Shah, Daniel H. Vacarro, Blake Caldwell, Adrienne M. Luoma, Joseph Driver, Matthew Ingham, Suthee Rapisuwon, Jennifer Wargo, Craig L. Slinguff, Evan Z. Macosco, Fei Chen, Richard Carvajal, Michael B. Atkins, Michael A. Davies, Elham Azizi, Santiago J. Carmona, Hanina Hibshoosh, Peter D. Canoll, Jeffrey N. Bruce, Wenya L. Bi, Gary K. Schwartz, Benjamin Izar. Dissecting the ecosystem of treatment-naïve melanoma brain metastasis using multi-modal single-cell analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 984.

6514 Background: Tobacco use is a modifiable risk factor for adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Despite ASCO’s recommendation for assessment and treatment of tobacco use, integration into cancer care is suboptimal. Socioeconomic contexts influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment, but little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials. Methods: The NCI Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was centrally administered to participants enrolled in 10 ECOG ACRIN clinical trials (9 therapeutic, 1 imaging). We examined associations of NSD with patient-reported rates of receiving brief tobacco cessation support (i.e., Ask, Assist (counseling)) and cessation (past 30d quit attempts and duration). NSD was measured using the national Area Deprivation Index (ADI) based on participant’s zip code. Associations between ADI (low, intermediate, and high) and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression and ANOVA. Results: 740 patients, completing the C-TUQ between June 2017-October 2021, can be classified as 402 (54%) never smokers, 81 (11%) current smokers, and 257 (35%) former smokers. Patients were 70% male; 94% white; 3% Hispanic; mean age 58.8 (SD 9.0). Cancer diagnoses were 36% leukemia; 19% lymphoma, 18% prostate, 11% breast; 9% melanoma, 7% myeloma, and 0.5% head and neck. Patients were categorized into high (33%), intermediate (34%) and low (33%) disadvantaged neighborhoods. Patients in high (vs. low) disadvantaged neighborhoods were more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR = 3.90; 95% CI (confidence interval), 1.61 to 9.46; p = 0.0062) but less likely to report receiving counseling to help quit smoking (OR = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.73; p = 0.0234). Patients from high disadvantaged neighborhoods had the shortest quit duration, followed by patients from intermediate and low disadvantaged neighborhoods (mean = 145.78, 187.66, and 210.98 months, respectively, p = 0.0372). Conclusions: Greater socioeconomic neighborhood disadvantage was associated with increased assessment of tobacco use but decreased tobacco treatment referral, and the shortest quit duration. More research is needed to promote increased referral to tobacco treatment for individuals with cancer from disadvantaged neighborhoods to promote and sustain cessation.

TPS9591 Background: In patients (pts) with advanced, metastatic melanoma (aMM) anti-PD-1 monotherapy and anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combination regimens yield durable responses, yet the optimal therapy duration remains unclear. Most prospective studies have treated responding pts for at least 2 years unless there has been a prohibitive treatment related adverse event (TRAE). Durable treatment-free survival has been observed in pts where anti-PD-1 therapy is discontinued after short courses due to TRAEs. Biomarkers are needed to define which pts may safely discontinue anti-PD-1 therapy in order to reduce financial toxicity and risk of late TRAEs, and to improve quality of life. 18FDG-PET/CT scan and tumor biopsy may better assess for active residual disease and identify pts who can safely discontinue treatment. A retrospective study at G-LCCC demonstrated responding pts with aMM who elected to discontinue their anti-PD-1 therapy (median treatment duration 12 months) after a negative PET/CT scan and/or tumor biopsy had event free survival (EFS) of 95% at 3 years (Gibney et al JITC 2021). We hypothesize that pts with disease control by CT scan after 12 months on anti-PD-1 therapy can be safely discontinued from treatment if no hypermetabolic activity on PET/CT scan or negative biopsy for active disease. Methods: EA6192 is a multicenter phase II study to evaluate the EFS after discontinuation of anti-PD-1-based therapy in aMM pts with PET/CT scan and/or biopsy that is negative for active disease. Pts with unresectable stage IIIB-IV aMM treated with nivolumab/ipilimumab (nivo/ipi), nivo, pembrolizumab (pembro), or pembro/ipi are eligible. Pts with uveal melanoma are excluded. Pts must receive 52 weeks of therapy, have disease control (CR, PR or SD by imRECIST) and no prohibitive TRAEs. Eligible pts undergo screening including 18FDG-PET/CT scan at 52 weeks (+/- 2 weeks) from start of anti-PD-1 therapy. Pts with hypermetabolic tumor site(s) undergo biopsy. Pts with non-hypermetabolic PET/CT scan or negative biopsy are assigned to Arm A and are monitored off active treatment. Pts with hypermetabolic PET/CT scan and positive or non-feasible biopsy are assigned to Arm B and remain on active treatment for another 48 weeks. Restaging scans are performed every 12 weeks. Arm B pts with disease control undergo a second PET/CT scan and biopsy, and then are monitored off active treatment. 150 patients are planned for accrual. The primary objective is to accurately define the 12-month EFS rate of Arm A, distinguishing between the null and alternative hypotheses of 12-month EFS rate of 88% and 95% with 92% power and one-sided type 1 error rate of 0.072. Secondary and exploratory objectives include assessment of pathologic response, EFS for Arm B, overall survival, incidence of late TRAEs, and correlative biomarker studies. This study is actively enrolling pts. Clinical trial information: NCT04462406.

4544 Background: The most commonly used prognostic models in aRCC, the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk scores, were developed when cytokines and VEGF targeted monotherapies were standard of care, respectively. aRCC 1L treatment now includes combination therapy with 2 ICIs or ICI+VEGF receptor inhibitor. Re-evaluation of the MSKCC and IMDC prognostic models in the era of ICI therapy and identification of additional prognostic factors are overdue. Methods: Data from 1052 patients with aRCC treated on the CheckMate-214 (CM214) clinical trial with 1L nivolumab/ipilimumab (NIVO/IPI) or sunitinib (SUN) were analyzed retrospectively at median follow-up 5 yrs. For each treatment group, multivariable Cox model hazard ratios (HR) were compared to the published MSKCC and IMDC model HRs. Discrimination (c index) was assessed based upon the continuous scores obtained as the weighted combination of regression parameters from the published MSKCC & IMDC models. Results: KPS < 80% remained highly prognostic in both treatment groups (HRs > 2.5). With the exception of high calcium, the other factors of time from dx to treatment < 1 yr, hemoglobin < lower limit of normal (LLN), neutrophils > upper limit of normal (ULN), platelets > ULN and LDH > 1.5xULN consistently retained prognostic value for SUN (HRs ≥ published model HRs) but had diminished prognostic value for NIVO/IPI (each HR < published model HR). High calcium had diminished prognostic value for SUN and retained prognostic value for NIVO/IPI. The c-indices for discrimination were 0.61 and 0.64 for the MSKCC model in the NIVO/IPI and SUN treatment groups, respectively, and were 0.63 and 0.67 for the IMDC model in the NIVO/IPI and SUN treatment groups compared to reported IMDC c-index of 0.73 (Heng 2009). (Table) Conclusions: The prognostic ability of the MSKCC and IMDC risk models is reduced with combination ICI treatment. Evaluation of additional prognostic factors and development of new risk scores are needed and this work is ongoing. [Table: see text]

4557 Background: Maturity of survival data is a consideration in the value assessment and confident clinical application of oncology drugs based on trial evidence. TIVO-3 supported FDA-approval of tivozanib (TIVO) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) advanced RCC, meeting the primary endpoint of significantly improved PFS over sorafenib (SOR) (HR: 0.73, 95% CI, 0.56-0.95). Long-term follow-up analyses demonstrate that the PFS rate at 3-years with TIVO is >5x higher than with SOR (12% vs 2%, respectively), yet a significant OS benefit for TIVO has not been observed to date. Here we report the contribution of event accumulation and data maturation on the stability of KM survival estimates. Methods: Intent-to-treat analyses of Cox proportional hazards and log-rank statistics were used to estimate the HR and 95% CI for OS in the TIVO-3 trial at prespecified (2-years after last-patient-in [LPI]; ≥251 events) and exploratory extended follow-up timepoints (≥270 events; database closure). Patients were followed for survival until death, consent withdrawal, or loss to follow-up. Results: 350 patients were randomized 1:1 to TIVO (n=175) or SOR (n=175). 2-years post LPI and a mean follow-up of 17.9 months (data cut-off August 2019), 65% of patients experienced an event (HR: 0.99, 95% CI, 0.76-1.29). Subsequent analyses are reported at 20.3 (May 2020), 21.9 (January 2021), and 22.8 (May 2021) months follow-up. Accumulation of events and HR over time is shown in the Table. After almost 23 months of follow-up and realization of 80% of events, OS HR has decreased to below 0.90, in favor of TIVO. Conclusions: Serial OS analyses using KM estimates are subject to increased curve reliability with decreased censoring and limited residual patients at risk for death. Long-term follow-up of TIVO-3 suggests early and consistent PFS benefit with TIVO over SOR is associated with an OS HR decline over-time with more events. Clinical trial information: NCT02627963. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway inhibitors have not been prospectively evaluated in patients with non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). The phase II KEYNOTE-427 study (cohort B) was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of single-agent pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, in advanced nccRCC. METHODS Patients with histologically confirmed, measurable (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1) nccRCC and no prior systemic therapy received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks for ≤ 24 months. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS Among enrolled patients (N = 165), 71.5% had confirmed papillary, 12.7% had chromophobe, and 15.8% had unclassified RCC histology. Most patients (67.9%) had intermediate or poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk status and tumors with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1 (61.8%). The median time from enrollment to database cutoff was 31.5 months (range, 22.7-38.8). In all patients, the ORR was 26.7%. The median duration of response was 29.0 months; 59.7% of responses lasted ≥ 12 months. The ORR by CPS ≥ 1 and CPS < 1 status was 35.3% and 12.1%, respectively. The ORR by histology was 28.8% for papillary, 9.5% for chromophobe, and 30.8% for unclassified. Overall, the median progression-free survival was 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 5.6); the 24-month rate was 18.6%. The median overall survival was 28.9 months (95% CI, 24.3 months to not reached); the 24-month rate was 58.4%. Overall, 69.7% of patients reported treatment-related adverse events, most commonly pruritus (20.0%) and hypothyroidism (14.5%). Two deaths were treatment related (pneumonitis and cardiac arrest). CONCLUSION First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy showed promising antitumor activity in nccRCC. The safety profile was similar to that observed in other tumor types.

PURPOSE Pembrolizumab, a programmed death 1 inhibitor, demonstrated promising single-agent activity in untreated patients with various cancer types. The phase II KEYNOTE-427 study evaluated efficacy and safety of single-agent pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC; cohort A) and advanced non-ccRCC (cohort B). Results of cohort A are reported. METHODS In this open-label, single-arm phase II study, patients with advanced ccRCC received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for ≤ 24 months. The primary end point was objective response rate by RECIST, version 1.1. RESULTS In the total population (N = 110), median time from enrollment to data cutoff was 35.9 (range, 29.5-40.3) months. Objective response rate was 36.4% with four (3.6%) complete responses and 36 (32.7%) partial responses; disease control rate was 58.2% (95% CI, 48.4 to 67.5). Most patients (68.2%) had a decrease in target lesions, including 30.9% with a reduction ≥ 60%. Median duration of response was 18.9 (range, 2.3-37.6+) months; 64.1% of responders had a response ≥ 12 months (Kaplan-Meier). Median progression-free survival was 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.0). Median overall survival was not reached; 12-month and 24-month overall survival rates were 88.2% and 70.8%, respectively. Durable responses were observed across all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium categories. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 30.0% of patients, of which colitis and diarrhea were most frequent. CONCLUSION Single-agent pembrolizumab showed promising antitumor activity as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced ccRCC, with durable responses across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium categories. Safety and tolerability profile of pembrolizumab monotherapy was comparable to what has been previously described in other tumor types.

Sarcomatoid and rhabdoid (S/R) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are highly aggressive tumors with limited molecular and clinical characterization. Emerging evidence suggests immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are particularly effective for these tumors, although the biological basis for this property is largely unknown. Here, we evaluate multiple clinical trial and real-world cohorts of S/R RCC to characterize their molecular features, clinical outcomes, and immunologic characteristics. We find that S/R RCC tumors harbor distinctive molecular features that may account for their aggressive behavior, including BAP1 mutations, CDKN2A deletions, and increased expression of MYC transcriptional programs. We show that these tumors are highly responsive to ICI and that they exhibit an immune-inflamed phenotype characterized by immune activation, increased cytotoxic immune infiltration, upregulation of antigen presentation machinery genes, and PD-L1 expression. Our findings build on prior work and shed light on the molecular drivers of aggressivity and responsiveness to ICI of S/R RCC., Sarcomatoid and rhabdoid tumours are highly aggressive forms of renal cell carcinoma that are also responsive to immunotherapy. In this study, the authors perform a comprehensive molecular characterization of these tumours discovering an enrichment of specific alterations and an inflamed phenotype.

Five years ago, the Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) conducted an assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the melanoma research community and patients with melanoma. Since then, remarkable progress has been made on both the basic and clinical research fronts. However, the incidence, recurrence, and death rates for melanoma remain unacceptably high and significant challenges remain. Hence, the MRF Scientific Advisory Council and Breakthrough Consortium, a group that includes clinicians and scientists, reconvened to facilitate intensive discussions on thematic areas essential to melanoma researchers and patients alike, prevention, detection, diagnosis, metastatic dormancy and progression, response and resistance to targeted and immune-based therapy, and the clinical consequences of COVID-19 for patients with melanoma and providers. These extensive discussions helped to crystalize our understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the broader melanoma community today. In this report, we discuss the progress made since the last MRF assessment, comment on what remains to be overcome, and offer recommendations for the best path forward.