Search

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.

All supplementary data

Supplementary Figure 4A. Kaplan-Meier PFS curves by treatment and dichotomized angiokines groups for following angiokines: TGFb-R3, HGF, TSP-2, OPN, IL-6, SDF-1, Ang-2, ICAM-1, TGF-b2, TIMP-1, BMP-9, PDGF-BB, VCAM-1, PDGF-AA, VEGF-D, TGF-b1, VEGF-R1, HER-3, VEGF, PlGF, CD-73, VEGF-R3, and VEGF-R2

Supplementary Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier PFS curves by dichotomized angiokines: CD-73, BMP-9, VEGF-R1, PDGF-BB, VEGF, IL-6, VCAM-1, OPN, HGF, PDGF-AA, TGFb-R3, TGF-b1, VEGF-R3, and TGF-b2

CONSORT diagram

Methods Supplement Supplementary Table 1. Patients Included in E-R Analysis Supplementary Table 2. Patients From Studies -006 and -011 Not Included in ER Analysis Supplementary Fig 1. Serum concentration:time profile of urelumab across the dose range evaluated (0.1 to 15 mg/kg) Supplementary Fig 2. Induction of a range of IFN-response genes by urelumab 0.1 mg/kg

Supplementary Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier OS curves by dichotomized angiokines: VEGF-D, VEGF, VEGF-R1, PDGF-AA, TGF-b1, VEGF-R3, HER-3, BMP-9, CD-73, VEGF-R2, TGF-b2, SDF-1, PDGF-BB, and TGFb-R3

Purpose: Urelumab is an agonist antibody to CD137 with potential application as an immuno-oncology therapeutic. Data were analyzed to assess safety, tolerability, and pharmacodynamic activity of urelumab, including the dose selected for ongoing development in patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphoma.Experimental Design: A total of 346 patients with advanced cancers who had progressed after standard treatment received at least one dose of urelumab in one of three dose–escalation, monotherapy studies. Urelumab was administered at doses ranging from 0.1 to 15 mg/kg. Safety analyses included treatment-related and serious adverse events (AEs), as well as treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation and death, with a focus on liver function test abnormalities and hepatic AEs.Results: Urelumab doses between 1 and 15 mg/kg given every 3 weeks resulted in a higher frequency of treatment-related AEs than 0.1 or 0.3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Dose was the single most important factor contributing to transaminitis development, which was more frequent and severe at doses ≥1 mg/kg. At the MTD of 0.1 mg/kg every 3 weeks, urelumab was relatively well tolerated, with fatigue (16%) and nausea (13%) being the most common treatment-related AEs, and was associated with immunologic and pharmacodynamic activity demonstrated by the induction of IFN-inducible genes and cytokines.Conclusions: Integrated evaluation of urelumab safety data showed significant transaminitis was strongly associated with doses of ≥1 mg/kg. However, urelumab 0.1 mg/kg every 3 weeks was demonstrated to be safe, with pharmacodynamic activity supporting continued clinical evaluation of this dose as monotherapy and in combination with other immuno-oncology agents. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 1929–36. ©2016 AACR.

Purpose:Biomarkers are needed in patients with non–clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC) to inform treatment selection but also to identify novel therapeutic targets. We thus sought to profile circulating angiokines in the context of a randomized treatment trial of everolimus versus sunitinib.Patients and Methods:ASPEN (NCT01108445) was an international, randomized, open-label phase II trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomized to everolimus or sunitinib and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) defined by RECIST 1.1. Plasma angiokines were collected at baseline, cycle 3, and progression and associated with PFS and overall survival (OS).Results:We enrolled 108 patients, 51 received sunitinib and 57 everolimus; of these, 99 patients had evaluable plasma for 23 angiokines. At the final data cutoff, 94 PFS and 64 mortality events had occurred. Angiokines that were independently adversely prognostic for OS were osteopontin (OPN), TIMP-1, thrombospondin-2 (TSP-2), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and VCAM-1, and these were also associated with poor-risk disease. Stromal derived factor 1 (SDF-1) was associated with improved survival. OPN was also significantly associated with worse PFS. No statistically significant angiokine-treatment outcome interactions were observed for sunitinib or everolimus. Angiopoeitin-2 (Ang-2), CD-73, HER-3, HGF, IL6, OPN, PIGF, PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, SDF-1, TGF-b1-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VCAM-1, VEGF, and VEGF-R1 levels increased with progression on everolimus, while CD-73, ICAM-1, IL6, OPN, PlGF, SDF-1, TGF-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VEGF, VEGF-D, and VCAM-1 increased with progression on sunitinib.Conclusions:In patients with metastatic NC-RCC, we identified several poor prognosis angiokines and immunomodulatory chemokines during treatment with sunitinib or everolimus, particularly OPN.

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 withIn a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naiveA 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-rankCombination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

We hypothesize that a significant number of patients do not respond to PD-1/L1 blockade because there are no pre-existing tumor antigen-specific T-cells, and this can be addressed by combination therapy with an oncolytic virus such as T-VEC. S1607 is a single arm Phase 2 study of T-VEC plus pembro in patients with advanced melanoma after PD-1/L1 inhibitor progression. The primary endpoint is ORR by modified RECIST (progression at the first follow-up disease assessment had to be confirmed). Secondary endpoints include durable response rate (response ≥ 6 months), ORR in injected, non-visceral non-injected, and visceral lesions, PFS, OS and toxicity. In Cohort A patients must have at least one measurable visceral lesion; in Cohort B patients must not have any visceral lesions. Each cohort had an independent accrual goal with a 2-stage design. All received intratumoral T-VEC and pembro 200mg IV every 21 days. Tumor biopsy and research blood are taken at baseline and on Day 28 (both injected and non-injected lesions). Tumor assessments are performed every 12 weeks for up to 2 years. 38 evaluable patients were enrolled. As of July 26, 2022, the median follow up was 28 months. Treatment was well tolerated, with 5/38 (13%) grade 3 AE (no grade 4/5) including injection site reactions, lymphocyte count decrease, and hypoxia. Cohort A was closed after stage I (n=11) with no confirmed responses. In Cohort B (n=27), there were 7 confirmed responses (26%; 2 CR, 5 PR; this rejected H0: ORR = 10%, p=0.01). Clinical outcomes are summarized in Table 1. Baseline tumor mutational burden from 17 patients in Cohort B were not different between responder vs non-responders (p=0.96). Translational study is ongoing for pharmacodynamic confirmation. T-VEC plus pembro in melanoma patients who have progressed on prior anti-PD1/L1 therapy has efficacy in the subset of melanoma patients who have non-visceral metastases. Table 1 Cohort A (Visceral) Cohort B(Non-Visceral) N (%; 95% CI) 11 27 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-28%) 7 (26%; 11%-46%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed 1 (9%; 0%-41%) 9 (33%; 17%-54%) Durable response 0 (0%; 0%-28%) 4 (15%; 4%-34%) Median PFS in months 2.1 (0.7-5.5) 2.3 (1.9-6.2) INJECTED LESIONS 11 27 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-28%) 6 (22%; 9%-42%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed, PR + CR 1 (9%; 0%-41%) 8 (30%; 14%-50%) NON-INJECTED, NON-VISCERAL LESIONS 8 19 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-37%) 3 (16%; 3%-40%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed, PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-37%) 5 (26%; 9%-51%) VISCERAL LESIONS 11 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-28%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed, PR + CR 1 (9%; 0%-41%) ACQUIRED RESISTANCE 3 2 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-71%) 2 (100%; 16%-100%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed, PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-71%) 2 (100%; 16%-100%) Median PFS in months 2.1 (2.0-4.1) NR (8.0-∞) PRIMARY RESISTANCE 8 25 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-37%) 5 (20%; 7%-41%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed, PR + CR 1 (13%; 0%-53%) 7 (28%; 12%-49%) Median PFS in months 1.8 (0.3-6.2) 2.1 (1.9-3.3) Citation Format: Siwen Hu-Lieskovan, James Moon, John Hyngstrom, Katie M. Campbell, Gino K. In, Theodore F. Logan, Kari L. Kendra, Ding M. Wang, Douglas B. Johnson, Gary C. Doolittle, Alan Tan, Ann W. Silk, Kenneth F. Grossmann, Christopher W. Ryan, Sapna P. Patel, Shay Bellasea, Michael C. Wu, John M. Kirkwood, Helen X. Chen, Antoni Ribas. Combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) with pembrolizumab (pembro) in advanced melanoma patients following progression on a prior PD-1 inhibitor: SWOG S1607 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 3275.

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 .

700 Background: Genomic alterations in RCC can serve as biomarkers for response to therapy. Wild type VHL has shown inferior response to VEGF inhibitors, while patients (pts) with mutated VHL have improved outcomes with immunotherapy (IO)/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. We describe the impact of genomic alterations on outcomes and response to front-line therapy. Methods: Pts with mRCC who underwent genomic sequencing between 2015-2022 at Indiana University and were treated with front-line therapy were included. Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze progression free survival (mPFS) and overall survival (OS) using the log rank test to compare groups. Results: 141 pts were included. Median age was 58yrs (range, 24-81). Tumor histology was 68% clear cell, 10% papillary, 9% unclassified, 1% chromophobe, 1% poorly differentiated, and 9% other. 18% of pts had sarcomatoid features; 13% had rhabdoid. 47% pts had metastasis at diagnosis and 53% at relapse. Metastasis sites were lungs 60%, regional lymph nodes (LNs) 41%, bone 36%, distant LNs 21%, liver 17%, and brain 8%. IMDC risk was 18% good, 48% intermediate, 17% poor, and 17% unknown. Front-line therapy was IO/IO in 21%, IO/TKI in 18%, single-agent TKI in 29%, single-agent IO in 6%, and other in 26%. Genetic alterations included VHL in 50%, PBRM1 in 29%, SETD2 in 23%, BAP1 in 16%, and TP53 in 15%. Median follow-up was 2.74yrs (range 0.1-18.6). Overall mPFS with first line therapy was 1.2yrs (95%CI 0.9-1.5). 2-yr OS was 80% (95%CI: 71-86). For pts with a VHL mutation, mPFS was 1.4yrs (95% CI; 0.9-1.8) compared to 0.9yrs (0.5-1.4) for pts without (p=0.38). 2-yr OS for pts with a VHL mutation was 93% (95% CI: 82-97) vs. 68% (95%CI: 54-78) for pts without (p=0.01). No other mutations impacted overall mPFS or 2-yr OS. mPFS for pts treated with IO/IO was 0.6yrs (95%CI 0.3-0.9) vs. 0.9yrs (95%CI 0.5-1.4) for IO/TKI (p=0.09). 2-yr OS for pts treated with IO/IO was 70% (95% CI 44-85) compared to 94% (95% CI 65-99) for IO/TKI (p=0.29). For pts with SETD2 mutations treated with IO/IO, mPFS was 0.7yrs (95%CI 0.3-1.2) vs. 1.4yrs (95%CI 0.8-1.9) for IO/TKI (p=0.01). For pts with BAP1 mutations treated with IO/IO, mPFS was 0.4yrs (95%CI 0.2-1.2) vs. NE (95%CI 0.2-NE) for IO/TKI (p=0.04). The table outlines outcomes by genomic mutation and therapy. Conclusions: VHL mutation was associated with improved 2-yr OS. Pts with SETD2 and BAP1 mutations treated with IO/TKI had improved mPFS, though no differences in OS. [Table: see text]

Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC), particularly papillary renal cell carcinoma, in order to inform on initial treatment selection and identify potentially novel targets for therapy. We enrolled 108 patients in ASPEN, an international randomized open-label phase 2 trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC treated with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (n=57) or the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibitor sunitinib (n=51), stratified by MSKCC risk and histology. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary efficacy endpoints for this exploratory biomarker analysis were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) defined by intention-to-treat using the RECIST 1.1 criteria and radiographic response rates. Tissue biomarkers (n=78) of mTOR pathway activation (phospho-S6 and -Akt, c-kit) and VEGF pathway activation (HIF-1α, c-MET) were prospectively explored in tumor tissue by immunohistochemistry prior to treatment and associated with clinical outcomes. We found that S6 activation was more common in poor-risk NC-RCC tumors and S6/Akt activation was associated with worse PFS and OS outcomes with both everolimus and sunitinib, while c-kit was commonly expressed in chromophobe tumors and associated with improved outcomes with both agents. C-MET was commonly expressed in papillary tumors and was associated with lower rates of radiographic response but did not predict PFS for either agent. In multivariable analysis, both pAkt and c-kit were statistically significant prognostic biomarkers of OS. No predictive biomarkers of treatment response were identified for clinical outcomes. Most biomarker subgroups had improved outcomes with sunitinib as compared to everolimus.

High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) was approved in the 1990s after demonstrating durable complete responses (CRs) in some patients with metastatic melanoma (mM) and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients who achieve this level of disease control have also demonstrated improved survival compared with patients who progress, but limited data are available describing the long-term course. The aim of this study was to better characterize long-term survival following successful HD IL-2 treatment in patients with no subsequent systemic therapy. Eleven HD IL-2 treatment centers identified patients with survival ≥5 years after HD IL-2, with no subsequent systemic therapy. Survival was evaluated from the date of IL-2 treatment to June 2017. Treatment courses consisted of 2 1-week cycles of HD IL-2. Patients were treated with HD IL-2 alone, or HD IL-2 followed by local therapy to achieve maximal response. 100 patients are reported: 54 patients with mM and 46 patients with mRCC. Progression-free survival (PFS) after HD IL-2 ranges from 5+ years to 30+ years, with a median follow-up of 10+ years. 27 mRCC and 32 mM are alive ≥10 years after IL-2. Thus, a small subset of patients with mM and mRCC achieve long-term PFS (≥5 years) after treatment with HD IL-2 as their only systemic therapy. The ability of HD IL-2 therapy to induce prolonged PFS should be a major consideration in studies of new immunotherapy combinations for mM and mRCC.

Purpose: Biomarkers are needed in patients with non–clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC) to inform treatment selection but also to identify novel therapeutic targets. We thus sought to profile circulating angiokines in the context of a randomized treatment trial of everolimus versus sunitinib. Patients and Methods: ASPEN (NCT01108445) was an international, randomized, open-label phase II trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomized to everolimus or sunitinib and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) defined by RECIST 1.1. Plasma angiokines were collected at baseline, cycle 3, and progression and associated with PFS and overall survival (OS). Results: We enrolled 108 patients, 51 received sunitinib and 57 everolimus; of these, 99 patients had evaluable plasma for 23 angiokines. At the final data cutoff, 94 PFS and 64 mortality events had occurred. Angiokines that were independently adversely prognostic for OS were osteopontin (OPN), TIMP-1, thrombospondin-2 (TSP-2), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and VCAM-1, and these were also associated with poor-risk disease. Stromal derived factor 1 (SDF-1) was associated with improved survival. OPN was also significantly associated with worse PFS. No statistically significant angiokine-treatment outcome interactions were observed for sunitinib or everolimus. Angiopoeitin-2 (Ang-2), CD-73, HER-3, HGF, IL6, OPN, PIGF, PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, SDF-1, TGF-b1-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VCAM-1, VEGF, and VEGF-R1 levels increased with progression on everolimus, while CD-73, ICAM-1, IL6, OPN, PlGF, SDF-1, TGF-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VEGF, VEGF-D, and VCAM-1 increased with progression on sunitinib. Conclusions: In patients with metastatic NC-RCC, we identified several poor prognosis angiokines and immunomodulatory chemokines during treatment with sunitinib or everolimus, particularly OPN.

Background This is the first randomized trial evaluating an oncolytic virus with an immune checkpoint inhibitor in advanced melanoma. Improved objective response rate (ORR) was observed for T-VEC plus IPI compared to IPI alone (39% vs. 18%; OR 2.9; 95% Cl, 1.5–5.5; P=0.002).1 At 3-year follow-up, median OS was not reached in either arm (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.55–1.32; P=0.480).2 Here we present 4-year interim analysis results including BRAF V600 mutation subgroup analysis. Methods Patients with unresectable or metastatic (IIIB-IV) melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive T-VEC plus IPI or IPI alone. T-VEC was injected day 1, week 1, at 106 PFU/mL, followed by 108 PFU/mL on day 1, week 4, and Q2W thereafter. IPI (3 mg/kg) was given Q3W starting day 1, week 6, up to 4 doses, for T-VEC arm; day 1, week 1 for IPI alone. Response was assessed per immune-related response criteria (irRC) Q12W until disease progression. The primary endpoint was ORR; key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), durable response rate (DRR), and safety (NCT01740297). Results A total of 198 patients (98 combination, 100 IPI alone) were randomized. As of February 25, 2020, median follow-up was 48.3 months for combination and 35.7 months for IPI alone. DRR improved for combination vs. IPI (33.7% vs. 13.0%; OR 3.4; 95% CI, 1.7–7.0; P=0.001). Median PFS was 13.5 months with combination and 6.4 months with IPI (HR 0.81; 95% Cl, 0.57–1.15; P=0.23). Median OS was not reached for combination and was 50.1 months for IPI (HR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54–1.25; P=0.36). For combination, 47 (48.0%) patients received subsequent anti-cancer therapy vs. 64 (64.0%) for IPI; median time from randomization to first subsequent therapy was 27.7 months and 8.3 months, respectively. In subgroup analysis, patients without BRAF V600 mutation (63% combination, 60% IPI) improved DRR and PFS for combination vs. IPI alone (DRR: 33.9% vs. 5.0%; median PFS: 18.0 months vs. 4.5 months); BRAF V600 mutation positive patients (36% combination, 34% IPI) were similar between arms (DRR: 34.3% vs. 26.5%; median PFS: 4.2 months vs. 6.4 months). No additional safety signals observed in follow-up. Conclusions The improved PFS and DRR for the combination arm at 4-year follow-up indicates continued benefit of combination therapy. Patients receiving IPI alone were more likely to receive subsequent anti-cancer therapy in a shorter time. Subsequent anticancer therapies may confound OS analysis. The BRAF mutant post-hoc analysis requires further mechanistic investigation. Acknowledgements • The authors thank the investigators, patients, and study staff who contributed to this study.• The study was sponsored and funded by Amgen Inc. • Medical writing support was provided by Christopher Nosala (Amgen Inc.). Trial Registration NCT01740297 Ethics Approval The study was approved by all institutional ethics boards. References Chesney J, Puzanov I, Collichio F, et al. Randomized, open-label phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of talimogene laherparepvec in combination with ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced, unresectable melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1658–1667. Chesney JA, Puzanov I, Collichio F, et al. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) in combination (combo) with ipilimumab (ipi) versus ipi alone for advanced melanoma: 3-year landmark analysis of a randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial. Ann Oncol 2019;30:mdz394-067.

Limfoma de cèl·lules B; Urelumab Linfoma de células B; Urelumab B-cell lymphoma; Urelumab Urelumab, a fully human, non-ligand binding, CD137 agonist IgG4 monoclonal antibody, enhances T-cell and natural killer-cell antitumor activity in preclinical models, and may enhance cytotoxic activity of rituximab. Here we report results in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and other B-cell lymphomas, in phase 1 studies evaluating urelumab alone (NCT01471210) or combined with rituximab (NCT01775631). Sixty patients received urelumab (0.3 mg/kg IV Q3W, 8 mg IV Q3W, or 8 mg IV Q6W); 46 received urelumab (0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, or 8 mg IV Q3W) plus rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV QW. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of urelumab was determined to be 0.1 mg/kg or 8 mg Q3W after a single event of potential drug-induced liver injury occurred with urelumab 0.3 mg/kg. Treatment-related AEs were reported in 52% (urelumab: grade 3/4, 15%) and 72% (urelumab + rituximab: grade 3/4, 28%); three led to discontinuation (grade 3 increased AST, grade 4 acute hepatitis [urelumab]; one death from sepsis syndrome [urelumab plus rituximab]). Objective response rates/disease control rates were 6%/19% (DLBCL, n = 31), 12%/35% (FL, n = 17), and 17%/42% (other B-cell lymphomas, n = 12) with urelumab and 10%/24% (DLBCL, n = 29) and 35%/71% (FL, n = 17) with urelumab plus rituximab. Durable remissions in heavily pretreated patients were achieved; however, many were observed at doses exceeding the MTD. These data show that urelumab alone or in combination with rituximab demonstrated manageable safety in B-cell lymphoma, but the combination did not enhance clinical activity relative to rituximab alone or other current standard of care. Research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kite/Gilead, Merck, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals.

PURPOSE We hypothesized that bevacizumab will potentiate activity of pembrolizumab. We conducted a phase Ib/II, single-arm, multisite clinical trial of the combination in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic clear cell RCC who experienced progression after at least one systemic therapy (phase Ib) or were treatment naïve (phase II) were enrolled. In phase Ib, pembrolizumab (200 mg) and bevacizumab (10 or 15 mg/kg) were given intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary end point for phase II was overall response rate (ORR). With an 80% statistical power and a type I error probability of 0.1, 48 patients were to be accrued to detect an ORR of 42%. RESULTS Thirteen patients (ages 33-68 years; median, 55 years) were enrolled in the phase Ib study. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported. Pembrolizumab 200 mg and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg were chosen for phase II. Forty-eight patients (ages 42-84 years; median age, 61 years; 33 males) were accrued for the phase II study. The primary end point was met, with the ORR reaching 60.9% (95% CI, 45.4% to 74.9%), consisting of 1 complete response (CR), 2 CRs in target lesions, 25 partial responses, 18 responses of stable disease, 2 unevaluable responses. Median progression-free survival was 20.7 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 27.4 months). Median overall survival was not reached at the median follow-up of 28.3 months. The most common treatment-related grade 3 toxicities were hypertension and proteinuria. There were two grade 4 toxicities: duodenal ulcer and hyponatremia. Presence of tumor-infiltrating T cells, but not programmed death-ligand 1 expression, in tumor tissue correlated with response. CONCLUSION The combination of 200 mg of pembrolizumab and a 15 mg/kg dose of bevacizumab given every 3 weeks is safe and active in metastatic RCC.

BACKGROUND Interleukin 2 (IL-2) is a growth factor for T and natural killer cells, promotes proinflammatory cytokines, and can lead to durable responses in patients with melanoma. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) promotes angiogenesis and modulates host innate and adaptive immunity. High VEGF levels were found to be associated with nonresponse to IL-2. Ziv-aflibercept may deplete VEGF and thereby enhance antitumor T-cell responses, thus supporting a combination immunotherapeutic strategy with IL-2. METHODS NCI 8628 was a phase 2 trial of ziv-aflibercept and IL-2 (arm A) versus IL-2 alone (arm B) randomized at 2:1, respectively. Eligible patients had inoperable American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III or stage IV melanoma. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS A total of 89 patients were enrolled and 84 patients were treated. The median follow-up was 41.4 months. Among treated patients (55 patients in arm A and 29 patients in arm B), PFS was significantly improved in favor of arm A, with a median of 6.9 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.1-8.7 months) versus 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.6-3.5 months) (P

Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 106 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 108 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.

Purpose: Biomarkers are needed in patients with non–clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC) to inform treatment selection but also to identify novel therapeutic targets. We thus sought to profile circulating angiokines in the context of a randomized treatment trial of everolimus versus sunitinib. Patients and Methods: ASPEN (NCT01108445) was an international, randomized, open-label phase II trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to everolimus or sunitinib and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) defined by RECIST 1.1. Plasma angiokines were collected at baseline, cycle 3, and progression and associated with PFS and overall survival (OS). Results: We enrolled 108 patients; 51 received sunitinib and 57 everolimus. Of these, 89 patients had evaluable plasma for 23 angiokines. At the final data cutoff, 87 PFS and 62 mortality events had occurred. Angiokines that were independently adversely prognostic for OS were osteopontin (OPN), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and VCAM-1, and these were also associated with poor-risk disease. Stromal derived factor 1 was associated with improved survival. OPN was also significantly associated with worse PFS. No statistically significant angiokine–treatment outcome interactions were observed for sunitinib or everolimus. OPN, HGF, TIMP-1, VCAM-1, PDGF-AA, and IL6 levels increased with progression on everolimus, while OPN, PlGF, TIMP-1, VEGF, and soluble VEGFR-2 and VCAM-1 increased with progression on sunitinib. Conclusions: In patients with metastatic NC-RCC, we identified several poor prognosis angiokines and immunomodulatory chemokines during treatment with sunitinib or everolimus, particularly OPN.

BACKGROUND In a prior open-label study, the combination of dalantercept, a novel antiangiogenic targeting activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK1), plus axitinib was deemed safe and tolerable with a promising efficacy signal in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS In the current phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with clear cell RCC previously treated with 1 prior angiogenesis inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to receive axitinib plus dalantercept versus axitinib plus placebo. Randomization was stratified by the type of prior therapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were PFS in patients with ≥2 prior lines of anticancer therapy, overall survival, and the objective response rate. RESULTS Between June 10, 2014, and February 23, 2017, a total of 124 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib plus dalantercept (59 patients) or placebo (65 patients). The median PFS was not found to be significantly different between the treatment groups (median, 6.8 months vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.73; P = .670]). Neither group reached the median overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.70-2.77; P = .349]). The objective response rate was 19.0% (11 of 58 patients; 95% CI, 9.9%-31.4%) in the dalantercept plus axitinib group and 24.6% (15 of 61 patients; 95% CI, 14.5%-37.3%) in the placebo plus axitinib group. At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event of ≥grade 3 was observed in 59% of patients (34 of 58 patients) in the dalantercept group and 64% of patients (39 of 61 patients) in the placebo group. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo plus axitinib group. CONCLUSIONS Although well tolerated, the addition of dalantercept to axitinib did not appear to improve treatment-related outcomes in previously treated patients with advanced RCC.

Background & Hypothesis: We hypothesize that whole-body PET imaging with 62Cu-ETS and readily implemented tracer kinetic models, can enable absolute quantification of regional perfusion (mL•min-1•g-1) in a fashion that is reproducible; readily standardized across institutions; and logistically suitable for clinical implementation. Experimental Design: Thirty-five paired 62Cu-ETS and H215O studies were performed in six Göttingen minipigs to validate the use of image-derived input functions. H215O estimates of tissue perfusion served as a reference standard for comparison with 62Cu-ETS. To demonstrate quantitative whole-body perfusion imaging in humans, paired 62Cu-ETS and H215O studies were performed in 14 renal cell carcinoma patients both prior to and following sunitinib therapy. Results: The pig studies showed a strong correlation between regional blood flow estimates made with 62Cu-ETS and H215O, using image-derived input functions with tracer kinetic model-based corrections for 62Cu-ETS decomposition in blood (slope=0.932, R2=0.746). High quality voxel-wise 62Cu-ETS perfusion and blood volume parametric images demonstrated a strong correlation with H215O across all tissues within the imaging field-of-view. Using a same-day test-retest design, which was then repeated across two weeks, the animal study demonstrated good test-retest variability (TRV) for 62Cu-ETS and H215O with TRV of 6.3% ± 5.40% and 5.0% ± 4.77%, respectively. These findings strongly support application of the modeling methods to the human data, which is currently in progress. Conclusion & Potential Impact: Whole-body imaging to non-invasively quantify regional perfusion holds promising potential for clinical implementation, using 62Cu-ETS PET coupled with tracer kinetic models that rely solely on the acquired imaging data.

Summary Background Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Methods We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445. Findings Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8–11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5–6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03–1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none). Interpretation In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors. Funding Novartis and Pfizer.

5064 Background: Immunosuppressive regulatory T cells (Tregs) and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) limit the efficacy of immunotherapies. We have previously reported that the HDAC inhibitor entinostat has synergistic antitumor effect in combination with immunotherapies in preclinical models by inhibiting Tregs and MDSCs function. The combination of atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) and bevacizumab (VEGF inhibitor) is active in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Thus, we have conducted a Phase I study with entinostat, atezolizumab and bevacizumab in patients (pts) with metastatic RCC. Methods: The primary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability. The phase I portion included 3 dose levels of entinostat (1 mg, 3 mg or 5 mg, PO weekly) and fixed, standard doses of atezolizumab (1200 mg IV every 21 days) and bevacizumab (15 mg/Kg IV every 21 days). Pts with any histological type and prior therapies were included. Results: Dose levels were completed with up to 1 DLT/dose level. 5 mg was the Phase II recommended dose for entinostat. DLTs included hypertension, encephalopathy, hyponatremia and pruritus. The most common resolved grade 3/4 toxicities were hypophosphatemia (33%), hypertension (17%), and pneumonitis (11%). We have enrolled 18 pts (17 evaluable for ORR by RECIST). 5 pts continue on treatment. 3 pts discontinued treatment because of adverse events, 9 pts for disease progression, and one pt for physician decision. Good risk and intermediate risk pts were 61% and 39%, respectively. Overall ORR was 47.1% (95% CI 23.0-72.2) and median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI 1.6-16.3). In pts with no prior therapies (12) the ORR was 58.3% (95% CI 27.7-84.8) and median PFS was 13.4 months (95% CI 1.5-28.9). One additional PR was observed by ir-RC but was not confirmed within the data cut-off date of 11/11/19. In pts with prior immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) (5) ORR was 20% (95% CI 0.5-71.6) and median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI 1.3-NR). Preliminary data show a statistically significant lower % of circulating monocytic MDSC (HLADR−1CD11b+CD33highCD14+CD15−) and exhausted T cells (CD45+CD3+CD8+TIM3+) following treatment in pts (4) with objective responses as compared to pts (4) with progressive disease. Conclusions: The results from this phase I suggest that the combination of entinostat, atezolizumab and bevacizumab is relatively well tolerated and is active in renal cell carcinoma patients, in both ICIs naïve and resistant disease. A phase II portion of this study is currently accruing patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03024437 .

Background Preclinical studies suggest that BRAF inhibitors enhance anti-tumor immunity and antigen presentation. Combination BRAF inhibition with immunotherapy is an appealing therapeutic approach. We sequenced vemurafenib with HD IL-2 in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma to improve long term outcomes. Methods Eligible patients were HD IL-2 eligible with metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma. Cohort 1 was treatment na��ve and received vemurafenib 960 mg BID for 6 weeks before HD IL-2. Cohort 2 received vemurafenib for 7���18 weeks before enrollment. Both cohorts received HD IL-2 at 600,000 IU/kg every 8 h days 1���5 and days 15���19. The primary objective was to assess complete responses (CR) at 10 weeks ��3 (assessment 1) and 26 weeks ��3 (assessment 2) from the start of HD IL-2. Results Fifty-three patients were enrolled, (cohort 1, n���=���38; cohort 2, n���=���15). Of these, 39 underwent assessment 1 and 15 assessment 2. The CR rate at assessment 1 was 10% (95% CI 3���24) for both cohorts combined, and 27% (95% CI 8���55) at assessment 2. Three-year survival was 30 and 27% for cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. No unexpected toxicities occurred. A shift in the melanoma treatment landscape during this trial adversely affected accrual, leading to early trial closure. Conclusions Vemurafenib in sequence with HD IL-2 did not change the known toxicity profile for either agent. Lower than expected response rates to vemurafenib were observed. Overall response rates and durability of responses appear similar to that observed with HD IL-2 alone. Trial registration NCTN, NCT01683188. Registered 11 September 2012, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/NCT01683188

Background Immune related adverse events (irAEs) are associated with immunotherapy for cancer and while results suggest improvement in tumor control and overall survival in those experiencing irAEs, the long-term impact is debated. We evaluated irAE reports related to high dose interleukin-2 therapy (IL-2) documented in the PROCLAIMSM registry data base from 2008 to 2016 (NCT01415167, August 9, 2011). Methods Reports on 1535 patients, including 623 with metastatic melanoma (mM) and 919 with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) (7 patients had both diseases), were queried for irAEs. The timing of the event was categorized as occurring before, during or after IL-2 or related to any checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). mM patients and mRCC patients were analyzed separately. Tumor control [complete + partial response + stable disease (CR + PR + SD) was compared between those experiencing no irAE versus those with the development of irAEs. Survival was analyzed by tumor type related to timing of irAE and IL-2, and in those with or without exposure to CPI. Results Median follow-up was 3.5+ years (range 1–8+ years), 152 irAEs were reported in 130 patients (8.4% of all PROCLAIMSM patients): 99 (16%) in mM and 53 (5.8%) in mRCC patients. 31 irAEs occurred prior to IL-2, 24 during IL-2, and 97 after IL-2 therapy. 74 irAEs were attributed to IL-2 only (during/ after IL-2). Of the 97 post IL-2 irAEs, 24 were attributed to CPI, and 15 could not be distinguished as caused by IL-2 or CPI. Tumor control was 71% for those experiencing irAE, and 56% for those with no irAE (p = 0.0008). Overall survival was significantly greater for those experiencing irAEs during/ after IL-2 therapy, compared to those with no irAE or irAE before IL-2 therapy, in mM patients, median 48 months vs 18 months (p

Systemic targeted molecular therapy, in the form of a selective BRAF inhibitor with or without a MEK inhibitor, is a standard treatment for patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma with unresectable stage III and IV disease. Patients with BRAF mutation-negative primary tumors may manifest BRAF mutation-positive metastatic disease. It is unclear whether all metastatic lesions carry the same BRAF mutation status found in the primary tumor and if discordancy exists, in what frequency it occurs. Primary and matched metastatic lesions in 25 melanoma patients were tested for the BRAF V600E/Ec, V600K, V600D, and V600R mutations using a BRAF RGQ PCR kit (Qiagen). Four patients (16%) had discrepancies between their primary and metastatic melanoma BRAF status. Of these patients, 2 (8%) had BRAF mutation-positive primary melanomas with BRAF mutation-negative metastatic lesions and 2 (8%) patient had BRAF mutation-negative melanoma with a BRAF mutation-positive metastatic lesion. In summary, discordancy of BRAF mutation status is not an infrequent finding between primary and metastatic melanoma. It may be prudent in previously negative patients to determine BRAF mutation status of new metastatic tumors for proper allocation of BRAF inhibitor therapy. Discordant BRAF status may have a role in the varying patterns of response and inevitable resistance seen with BRAF inhibitor therapies.

Although tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are the most common first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, high-dose interleukin-2 (HD-IL2) remains the only agent that provides durable complete responses. The optimal sequence of these agents remains uncertain. This retrospective multi-institutional study examined the safety and efficacy of HD-IL2 following TKI therapy. After IRB approval at 7 HD-IL2 centers, data relating to patient, disease, and treatment characteristics among 40 consecutive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with HD-IL2 after at least 1 prior TKI therapy were retrospectively collected. The most common cardiac adverse events were grade 3 hypotension and vascular leak syndrome. Six patients (15%) experienced other grade ≥3 cardiac adverse events. There were 2 treatment-related deaths due to congestive heart failure, occurring in 1 patient with short TKI to HD-IL2 interval and another patient with an abnormal baseline cardiac stress test. Best responses included 2 CRs (5%, duration 40+ and 62+ mo), 3 PRs (8%, duration 6, 11, and 24 mo), 13 SD (32%, median duration 12 mo), 20 PD (50%), and 2 not evaluable patients. Median overall survival was 22 months. Administration of HD-IL2 could be safe and effective after TKI therapy; however, careful selection of patients is critical. We recommend baseline cardiac risk factor assessment, screening with both cardiac stress test and echocardiogram, and allowing a TKI to HD-IL2 interval of at least 2 months.

Summary Background Addition of a MEK inhibitor to a BRAF inhibitor enhances tumour growth inhibition, delays acquired resistance, and abrogates paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway in preclinical models of BRAF -mutated melanoma. We assessed the safety and efficacy of combined BRAF inhibition with vemurafenib and MEK inhibition with cobimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF -mutated melanoma. Methods We undertook a phase 1b study in patients with advanced BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma. We included individuals who had either recently progressed on vemurafenib or never received a BRAF inhibitor. In the dose-escalation phase of our study, patients received vemurafenib 720 mg or 960 mg twice a day continuously and cobimetinib 60 mg, 80 mg, or 100 mg once a day for either 14 days on and 14 days off (14/14), 21 days on and 7 days off (21/7), or continuously (28/0). The primary endpoint was safety of the drug combination and to identify dose-limiting toxic effects and the maximum tolerated dose. Efficacy was a key secondary endpoint. All patients treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib were included in safety and efficacy analyses (intention-to-treat). The study completed accrual and all analyses are final. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01271803. Findings 129 patients were treated at ten dosing regimens combining vemurafenib and cobimetinib: 66 had recently progressed on vemurafenib and 63 had never received a BRAF inhibitor. Dose-limiting toxic effects arose in four patients. One patient on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 80 mg once a day 14/14 had grade 3 fatigue for more than 7 days; one patient on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 60 mg once a day 21/7 had a grade 3 prolongation of QTc; and two patients on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 60 mg 28/0 had dose-limiting toxic effects—one developed grade 3 stomatitis and fatigue and one developed arthralgia and myalgia. The maximum tolerated dose was established as vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day in combination with cobimetinib 60 mg 21/7. Across all dosing regimens, the most common adverse events were diarrhoea (83 patients, 64%), non-acneiform rash (77 patients, 60%), liver enzyme abnormalities (64 patients, 50%), fatigue (62 patients, 48%), nausea (58 patients, 45%), and photosensitivity (52 patients, 40%). Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate in severity. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (12 patients, 9%; all grade 3), raised amounts of alkaline phosphatase (11 patients, 9%]), and anaemia (nine patients, 7%). Confirmed objective responses were recorded in ten (15%) of 66 patients who had recently progressed on vemurafenib, with a median progression-free survival of 2·8 months (95% CI 2·6–3·4). Confirmed objective responses were noted in 55 (87%) of 63 patients who had never received a BRAF inhibitor, including six (10%) who had a complete response; median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 10·1–17·5). Interpretation The combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib was safe and tolerable when administered at the respective maximum tolerated doses. The combination has promising antitumour activity and further clinical development is warranted in patients with advanced BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma, particularly in those who have never received a BRAF inhibitor; confirmatory clinical testing is ongoing. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

2572 Background: Immunosuppressive factors such as regulatory T cells (Tregs) and myeloid-derived suppressive cells (MDSCs) limit the efficacy of immunotherapies. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors have been shown to have immunomodulatory effects. We have previously reported that HDAC inhibitors have synergistic antitumor effects in combination with PD-1 inhibition in tumor models by inhibiting the function of Tregs and MDSCs. Thus, we conducted a Phase Ib clinical study with the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat and the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial, renal and prostate carcinoma. Methods: The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of this combination strategy. The phase I portion consisted of two dose levels of vorinostat (100 and 200 mg, PO daily 2 weeks ON and one week OFF) and a fixed, standard dose of pembrolizumab (200 mg IV every 21 days). Patients were assigned to three cohorts: Cohort A (previously treated, anti-PD1/PD-L1 naïve urothelial and renal cancer pts = 15), Cohort B (previously treated, anti-PD1/PD-L1 resistant urothelial and renal cancer pts = 14), and Cohort C (prostate cancer pts = 14). Results: Dose levels 1 (4 enrolled, 3 evaluable) and 2 (4 enrolled, 3 evaluable) were completed without DLTs and 200 mg was the Phase II recommended dose for vorinostat. The most common resolved grade 3/4 toxicities were acute kidney injury (n = 1), anemia (n = 1), diarrhea (n = 1), and hypothyroidism (n = 1) in the dose expansion cohorts. We have enrolled 43 pts (37 evaluable) in the dose expansion cohorts. For Cohort A, B, and C the median PFS were 2.8 months, 5.2 months, and 3.5 months. Two PR were observed including the dose escalation phase. Two PCA pts have achieved undetectable PSA. We have performed several correlative studies including flow cytometry and gene expression analysis on peripheral blood mononuclear cells, PDL-1 staining and PSMA PET scans in a subset of pts. Conclusions: The results from this phase Ib suggest that the combination of vorinostat and pembrolizumab is relatively well tolerated and may be active in a subset of immune checkpoint resistant UC/RCC pts and immune checkpoint naïve PCA pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02619253.

Purpose: Urelumab is an agonist antibody to CD137 with potential application as an immuno-oncology therapeutic. Data were analyzed to assess safety, tolerability, and pharmacodynamic activity of urelumab, including the dose selected for ongoing development in patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphoma.Experimental Design: A total of 346 patients with advanced cancers who had progressed after standard treatment received at least one dose of urelumab in one of three dose-escalation, monotherapy studies. Urelumab was administered at doses ranging from 0.1 to 15 mg/kg. Safety analyses included treatment-related and serious adverse events (AEs), as well as treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation and death, with a focus on liver function test abnormalities and hepatic AEs.Results: Urelumab doses between 1 and 15 mg/kg given every 3 weeks resulted in a higher frequency of treatment-related AEs than 0.1 or 0.3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Dose was the single most important factor contributing to transaminitis development, which was more frequent and severe at doses ≥1 mg/kg. At the MTD of 0.1 mg/kg every 3 weeks, urelumab was relatively well tolerated, with fatigue (16%) and nausea (13%) being the most common treatment-related AEs, and was associated with immunologic and pharmacodynamic activity demonstrated by the induction of IFN-inducible genes and cytokines.Conclusions: Integrated evaluation of urelumab safety data showed significant transaminitis was strongly associated with doses of ≥1 mg/kg. However, urelumab 0.1 mg/kg every 3 weeks was demonstrated to be safe, with pharmacodynamic activity supporting continued clinical evaluation of this dose as monotherapy and in combination with other immuno-oncology agents. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 1929-36. ©2016 AACR. Purpose: Urelumab is an agonist antibody to CD137 with potential application as an immuno-oncology therapeutic. Data were analyzed to assess safety, tolerability, and pharmacodynamic activity of urelumab, including the dose selected for ongoing development in patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphoma.Experimental Design: A total of 346 patients with advanced cancers who had progressed after standard treatment received at least one dose of urelumab in one of three dose-escalation, monotherapy studies. Urelumab was administered at doses ranging from 0.1 to 15 mg/kg. Safety analyses included treatment-related and serious adverse events (AEs), as well as treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation and death, with a focus on liver function test abnormalities and hepatic AEs.Results: Urelumab doses between 1 and 15 mg/kg given every 3 weeks resulted in a higher frequency of treatment-related AEs than 0.1 or 0.3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Dose was the single most important factor contributing to transaminitis development, which was more frequent and severe at doses ≥1 mg/kg. At the MTD of 0.1 mg/kg every 3 weeks, urelumab was relatively well tolerated, with fatigue (16%) and nausea (13%) being the most common treatment-related AEs, and was associated with immunologic and pharmacodynamic activity demonstrated by the induction of IFN-inducible genes and cytokines.Conclusions: Integrated evaluation of urelumab safety data showed significant transaminitis was strongly associated with doses of ≥1 mg/kg. However, urelumab 0.1 mg/kg every 3 weeks was demonstrated to be safe, with pharmacodynamic activity supporting continued clinical evaluation of this dose as monotherapy and in combination with other immuno-oncology agents. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 1929-36. ©2016 AACR.

Summary Background Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy. Methods We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3–5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. Findings Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3–5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6–62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1–55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4–53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4–31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7–50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0–72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7–50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6–71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8–25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7–not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6–23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2–26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29–0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64–85 vs 54%; 42–65). Interpretation Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Interleukin 2 (IL-2) is a growth factor for T and natural killer cells, promotes proinflammatory cytokines, and can lead to durable responses in patients with melanoma. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) promotes angiogenesis and modulates host innate and adaptive immunity. High VEGF levels were found to be associated with nonresponse to IL-2. Ziv-aflibercept may deplete VEGF and thereby enhance antitumor T-cell responses, thus supporting a combination immunotherapeutic strategy with IL-2.NCI 8628 was a phase 2 trial of ziv-aflibercept and IL-2 (arm A) versus IL-2 alone (arm B) randomized at 2:1, respectively. Eligible patients had inoperable American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III or stage IV melanoma. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).A total of 89 patients were enrolled and 84 patients were treated. The median follow-up was 41.4 months. Among treated patients (55 patients in arm A and 29 patients in arm B), PFS was significantly improved in favor of arm A, with a median of 6.9 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.1-8.7 months) versus 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.6-3.5 months) (P.001). No significant difference was noted with regard to overall survival, with a median of 26.9 months (95% CI, 14.4-63.6 months) for arm A and 24.2 months (95% CI, 11.3-36.4 months) for arm B. The response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST]) was 22% in arm A (4 complete responses [CRs] and 8 partial responses [PRs]) and 17% in arm B (1 CR and 4 PRs). Stable disease or PR or CR was noted in 65% of patients in arm A and 48% of patients in arm B. The combination was found to be superior to monotherapy in patients with high and low levels of serum VEGF and VEGF receptor 2. Adverse events were consistent with the expected profiles of monotherapy with IL-2 and ziv-aflibercept.Ziv-aflibercept and IL-2 were found to significantly improve PFS compared with IL-2 alone, thereby meeting the primary endpoint of the current study. These findings support further study of immunotherapeutic combination strategies involving VEGF inhibitors.

Purpose Pneumonitis has occurred in patients treated with inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). In a phase III study of patients with previously untreated, poor-prognosis, advanced renal cell carcinoma (ARCC), the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus improved survival compared with interferon. We performed a retrospective, independent, blinded radiographic review of chest computed tomography (CT) images of patients in this study to characterize temsirolimus-related pneumonitis. Patients and Methods Patients were treated with intravenous temsirolimus 25 mg once weekly or subcutaneous interferon alfa 3 million units, with an increase to 18 million units, thrice weekly. Drug-related pneumonitis was identified based on sequential chest CT images, required every 8 weeks, showing changes consistent with pneumonitis and not pneumonia (infection) or disease progression as correlated with clinical data. Cumulative probability of drug-related pneumonitis was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Eight (6%) of 138 and 52 (29%) of 178 evaluable patients on interferon and temsirolimus treatment, respectively, developed radiographically identified drug-related pneumonitis. Time to onset of pneumonitis was significantly shorter on the temsirolimus arm than on the interferon arm (log-rank P < .001). Estimated cumulative probability of pneumonitis at 8 and 16 weeks from first dose was 21% and 31%, respectively, on the temsirolimus arm and 6% and 8%, respectively, on the interferon arm. Respiratory symptoms were observed around time of onset of radiographically diagnosed temsirolimus-related pneumonitis in 16 (31%) of 52 patients. Conclusion Patients with ARCC receiving temsirolimus should be monitored closely for development of pneumonitis, and their management should be altered if clinical symptoms appear.

Background Current treatment for metastatic renal cell cancer with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have provided improved overall survival, but complete responses are rare. We conducted a multicenter phase II study to evaluate the objective response rate of 2-methoxyestradiol (2ME2 NCD) alone and in combination with sunitinib for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on sunitinib alone. Methods Adults with metastatic kidney cancer were stratified depending on whether they were still taking sunitinib or had discontinued sunitinib therapy at the time of registration. Patients were treated with 2ME2 NCD alone or in combination with sunitinib. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Results In total, 17 patients were enrolled, and 12 were evaluable for response (arm A, n = 7; arm b, n = 5). In arm A, four patients had the best response of stable disease, and three patients developed disease progression. In arm B, three patients had a best response of stable disease, and two patients had disease progression. One patient continued to receive treatment for a total of 14 cycles before developing disease progression. Fatigue was the most common observed toxicities. Thirty five percent of patients required discontinuation of therapy secondary to toxicities. Conclusions 2ME2 NCD had minimal anti-tumor activity, with no observed objective responses. The study was terminated because 2ME2 NCD was not found to be tolerable at the recommended phase 2 dose in this patient population. A newer 2ME2 analog is in development with a more favorable toxicity profile and increased potency.

e21599Background: Prognostic role of BRAF mutation is not well-studied in malignant cutaneous melanoma. We conducted a large retrospective study using a state-wide database to assess the clinical c...

4573Background: Aldesleukin (recombinant human interleukin-2, IL-2) has been an FDA-approved treatment for mRCC since 1992 with a 5-10% rate of durable complete response. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) i...

e16567Background: Assessment of TP using 62Cu-ETS PET/CT has been demonstrated in pts with RCC (Fletcher et al, J Nuc Med 2015; 56:56-62, Logan et al, ASCO 2014; abstr 11110) compared to 15O-water ...

e16585Background: There are multiple case reports of spontaneously regressing metastatic RCC and M patients but little information about the natural history of disease after regression has been doc...

BACKGROUND: The alpha v beta 3 (αvβ3) integrin is involved in intracellular signaling regulating cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation and is important for tumor-induced angiogenesis. METHODS: This phase 2, randomized, open-label, 2-arm study was designed to capture safety data and evaluate the antitumor efficacy of etaracizumab (Abegrin), an IgG1 humanized monoclonal antibody against the αvβ3 integrin, in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. The objective was to evaluate whether etaracizumab ± dacarbazine had sufficient clinical activity to warrant further study in a phase 3 clinical trial. RESULTS: One hundred twelve patients were randomized to receive etaracizumab alone (N = 57) or etaracizumab + dacarbazine (N = 55). Safety of etaracizumab ± dacarbazine was acceptable with infusion-related, gastrointestinal, and metabolic reactions being the most common adverse events (AEs). The majority of AEs were grade 1 or 2 in severity in both study arms; most events were not considered serious, except for cardiovascular (myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation) and thromboembolic events, which occurred in 3 and 5 patients, respectively. None of the patients in the etaracizumab-alone study arm and 12.7% of patients in the etaracizumab + dacarbazine study arm achieved an objective response. The median duration of objective response in the etaracizumab + dacarbazine study arm was 4.2 months. Stable disease rate, time to progression (TTP), and progression-free survival (PFS) appeared to be similar between the 2 treatment arms. Stable disease occurred in 45.6% of patients in the etaracizumab-alone study arm and 40.0% of patients in the etaracizumab + dacarbazine study arm. Median TTP and median PFS were both 1.8 months in the etaracizumab-alone study arm and 2.5 and 2.6 months in the etaracizumab + dacarbazine study arm, respectively. Median overall survival was 12.6 months in the etaracizumab-alone study arm and 9.4 months in the etaracizumab + dacarbazine study arm. CONCLUSIONS: The survival results in both treatment arms of this study were considered unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement over dacarbazine alone. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.

106 Background: We performed a Phase II study of the combination of the autophagy inhibitor, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), along with high dose IL-2 in patients with advanced renal cancer. 31 patients were entered on this Cytokine Working Group Study conducted at six member institutions;NCT01550367. This combination in murine models was associated with diminished toxicity and increased efficacy, and, in preliminary studies, diminished high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) protein, consistent with its established role in serving as a Damage Associated Molecular Pattern (DAMP) molecule and inducer of autophagy. Methods: The Study Design involved initiating oral Hydroxychloroquine 300 mg P.O bid. Aldesleukin (600,000 IU/kg) was administered q8hrs in courses consisting of two cycles separated by 7-14 days and constituting a single course. For patients with stable or responsive disease, additional courses were administered every approximately 85-90 days. Serum, plasma, Paxgene tubes, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells were obtained sequentially prior to therapy initiation and sequentially on D1 and D2 of each cycle following initiation of therapy. Results: 31 patients (9F, 22M) have been registered and 3 confirmed complete responses observed; the current median overall survival has not been reached in the 29pts. The Baseline Karnofsky Score of 100 (17pts), 90 (13pts), and 80(1 pt). The mean age was 57.5 years, range = (45.2, 68.8). 26 patients had a mean of 12.5 doses +/-4.7 (3, 23) with 13 pts receiving a second course and 4, a third. Platelet nadir was diminished from baseline by 26%. Of the 27 patients in the data set, 18 had at least one Grade 4 toxicity at least possibly related to treatment, and 9 patients had at least one Grade 3 adverse event at least possibly related to treatment but no Grade 4 events.Serologic and cellular data and complete clinical data will be submitted with the completed abstract. Conclusions: The combination of high dose aldesleukin and daily oral HCQ was well tolerated. We have concluded this trial and will report mature survival data, toxicity data, and biomarkers/autophagy measures with the final submission. Clinical trial information: NCT01550367.

Purpose: Interleukin-18 (IL-18) is an immunostimulatory cytokine with antitumor activity in preclinical models. A phase I study of recombinant human IL-18 (rhIL-18) was done to determine the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and biological activities of rhIL-18 administered at different doses in two different schedules to patients with advanced cancer.Experimental Design: Cohorts of three to four patients were given escalating doses of rhIL-18 as a 2-h i.v. infusion either on 5 consecutive days repeated every 28 days (group A) or once a week (group B) for up to 6 months. Toxicities were graded using standard criteria. Blood samples were obtained for safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic measurements.Results: Nineteen patients (10 melanoma and 9 renal cell cancer) were given rhIL-18 in doses of 100, 500, or 1,000 μg/kg (group A) or 100, 1,000, or 2,000 μg/kg (group B). Common side effects included chills, fever, headache, fatigue, and nausea. Common laboratory abnormalities included transient, asymptomatic grade 1 to 3 lymphopenia, grade 1 to 4 hyperglycemia, grade 1 to 2 anemia, neutropenia, hypoalbuminemia, liver enzyme elevations, and serum creatinine elevations. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Biological effects of rhIL-18 included transient lymphopenia and increased expression of activation antigens on lymphocytes. Increases in serum concentrations of IFN-γ, granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor, and IL-18–binding protein were observed following dosing.Conclusions: rhIL-18 can be given in biologically active doses by either weekly infusions or daily infusions for 5 days repeated every 28 days to patients with advanced cancer. Toxicity was generally mild to moderate, and a maximum tolerated dose of rhIL-18 by either schedule was not determined.

A phase I/II trial was undertaken to determine the maximum tolerated dose of polyethylene glycol interferon-α-2b (PEG-IFN) with interleukin-2 (IL-2), and to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Patients initially received subcutaneous PEG-IFN, 3.0mcg/kg/wk, combined with IL-2, but owing to unexpected toxicity a revised phase I schedule ensued. Patients received 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, or 3.0 mcg/kg/wk of PEG-IFN on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; subcutaneous IL-2 was given at a dose of 5 x 10 6 IU/m 2 every 8 hours x 3 on day 1, followed daily at 5 x 10 6 IU/m 2 days 2, 3, 4, and 5 of week 1, then 5 times per week for 3 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off. The maximum tolerated dose of PEG-IFN was 2.0 mcg/kg/wk. Fifty-four patients were enrolled. Frequent grade III/IV cardiac and neurologic toxicities led to an expanded phase I trial. Eleven serious events in 33 patients in the phase II portion led to early termination. No patient died from treatment. The overall response rate in 53 evaluable patients was 30.2% (95% confidence interval 20.5-39.9), with 2 complete responses and 14 partial responses and at least 1 response at each dose level. The median duration of response was 11 months (range, 2 to 65 + mo); median survival was 20 months (range, 2 to 71 + mo); median time to progression was 4 months. Despite clinical efficacy, the study was closed prematurely owing to excess toxicity. Although all serious adverse events resolved, this degree of toxicity is unacceptable for an outpatient treatment regimen.