Search

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy-based combinations have emerged as standard therapies for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, combined with epacadostat, an indoleamine 2,3-deoxygenase 1 selective inhibitor, demonstrated promising antitumor activity in a phase 1 study in advanced solid tumors, including mRCC. METHODS: KEYNOTE-679/ECHO-302 was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 study (NCT03260894) that compared pembrolizumab plus epacadostat with sunitinib or pazopanib as first-line treatment for mRCC. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC and had not received systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks plus epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily versus sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off treatment) or pazopanib 800 mg orally once daily. Original dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. Enrollment was stopped when a phase 3 study in melanoma of pembrolizumab plus epacadostat compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy did not meet its primary end point. This protocol was amended, and primary end point was changed to investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: One-hundred-twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (n = 64) or sunitinib/pazopanib (n = 65). Median (range) follow-up, defined as time from randomization to data cutoff, was 10.3 months (2.2-14.3) and 10.3 months (2.7-13.8) in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (31.3% [95% CI 20.2-44.1] and sunitinib/pazopanib (29.2% [18.6-41.8]). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.4% and 42.9% of patients in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. One patient in the sunitinib/pazopanib arm died of septic shock (not treatment-related). Circulating kynurenine levels decreased in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat arm, but not to levels observed in healthy subjects. CONCLUSIONS: ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Safety and tolerability appeared similar between treatment arms; no new safety concerns were identified. Antitumor responses observed in patients with RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus epacadostat may be driven primarily by pembrolizumab. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03260894 .

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) interferes with activation of innate and adaptive immune responses. Theoretically, the efficacy and toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients infected with HCV may differ. Nevertheless, HCV was an exclusion criterion in most checkpoint inhibitor trials. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients with or without chronic HCV infection. Methods: In a matched cohort study, data were collected from 174 patients, retrospectively. All patients had clear-cell mRCC, chronic HCV infection (case study group), no evidence of other malignancy or cirrhosis, and had received nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Quantitation of HCV RNA in plasma samples was performed before and during treatment with nivolumab with the automated HCV test (Hoffmann-La Roche, Switzerland). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and rate of grade 3–4 adverse events in study and control cohorts. Results: A total of 44 matched patients were included. Groups were well balanced. HCV-infected patients had significantly longer OS and PFS. Median OS was 27.5 (95% CI 25.3–29.7) and 21.7 (20.3–23.1) in study and control groups, respectively (P = 0.005). Median PFS was 7.5 (5.7–9.3) and 4.9 (4–5.8) (P = 0.013). Despite no differences in ORR between groups (27% vs. 23%, P = 0.7), patients with HCV had significantly more durable responses (P = 0.01). Nivolumab was well tolerated in all HCV-positive patients. No unexpected toxicity was observed. Assessment of viral load during nivolumab therapy was available in 14 of 22 (64%) patients with HCV. Nivolumab did not significantly impact HCV concentration (mean change 210 IU/ml, P = 0.82) in the absence of antiviral therapy. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety profiles observed in this study support the administration of nivolumab in mRCC patients infected with HCV and warrant further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A durable clinical benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib treatment was observed in patients with previously untreated advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma. These results further support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for this patient population. Previous analyses of KEYNOTE-426, an open-label, phase 3 randomized study, showed superior efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib to sunitinib in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We report results of the final protocol-prespecified analysis of KEYNOTE-426. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 wk per 6-wk cycle). The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v1.1 by a blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). The median study follow-up was 43 (range, 36–51) mo. Benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was maintained for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.60–0.88]), PFS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58–0.80]), and ORR (60% vs 40%). The median DOR was 24 (range, 1.4+ to 43+) versus 15 (range, 2.3–43+) mo in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals emerged. These results support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for patients with previously untreated advanced ccRCC. Extended results of KEYNOTE-426 support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

First-line pembrolizumab + axitinib significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate over sunitinib, while health-related quality of life outcomes were not different between groups. In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) trial, pembrolizumab + axitinib demonstrated improvement in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate over sunitinib monotherapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in KEYNOTE-426. A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab + axitinib (n = 432) or sunitinib (n = 429). HRQoL data were available for 429 patients treated with pembrolizumab + axitinib and 423 patients treated with sunitinib. HRQoL end points were measured using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Core (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EQ-5D visual analog rating scale (VAS), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Cancer Symptom Index—Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) questionnaires. Better or not different overall improvement rates from baseline between pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib were observed for the FKSI-DRS (–0.79% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% confidence interval [CI] –7.2 to 5.6), QLQ-C30 (7.5% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 1.0–14), and EQ-5D VAS (9.9% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 3.2–17). For time to confirmed deterioration (TTcD) and time to first deterioration (TTfD), no differences were observed between arms for the QLQ-C30 (TTcD hazard ratio [HR] 1.0; 95% CI 0.82–1.3; TTfD HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69–0.97) and EQ-5D VAS (TTcD HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.87–1.3; TTfD HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83–1.2). TTfD was not different between treatment arms (HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.95–1.3) for the FKSI-DRS, but TTcD favored sunitinib (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1–1.7). Patients were assessed during the off-treatment period for sunitinib, which may have underestimated the negative impact of sunitinib on HRQoL. Overall, patient-reported outcome scales showed that results between the pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib arms were not different, with the exception of TTcD by the FKSI-DRS. Compared with sunitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib delays disease progression and extends survival, while HRQoL outcomes were not different between groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.Methods: In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331.Findings: Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis.Interpretation: With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma.Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]