David F McDermott1, Jeffrey A Sosman2, Mario Sznol2, Christophe Massard2, Michael S Gordon2, Omid Hamid2, John D Powderly2, Jeffrey R Infante2, Marcella Fassò2, Yan V Wang2, Wei Zou2, Priti S Hegde2, Gregg D Fine2, Thomas Powles2. 1. David F. McDermott, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Jeffrey A. Sosman, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; Jeffrey R. Infante, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN; Mario Sznol, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT; Christophe Massard, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif Cedex, France; Michael S. Gordon, Pinnacle Oncology Hematology, Scottsdale, AZ; Omid Hamid, Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica; Marcella Fassò, Yan V. Wang, Wei Zou, Priti S. Hedge, and Gregg D. Fine, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA; John D. Powderly, Carolina BioOncology Institute, Huntersville, NC; and Thomas Powles, Barts Cancer Institute Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine and the Royal Free National Health Service Trust, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. dmcdermo@bidmc.harvard.edu. 2. David F. McDermott, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Jeffrey A. Sosman, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; Jeffrey R. Infante, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN; Mario Sznol, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT; Christophe Massard, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif Cedex, France; Michael S. Gordon, Pinnacle Oncology Hematology, Scottsdale, AZ; Omid Hamid, Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica; Marcella Fassò, Yan V. Wang, Wei Zou, Priti S. Hedge, and Gregg D. Fine, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA; John D. Powderly, Carolina BioOncology Institute, Huntersville, NC; and Thomas Powles, Barts Cancer Institute Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine and the Royal Free National Health Service Trust, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective was to determine the safety and clinical activity of atezolizumab (MPDL3280A), a humanized programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Exploratory biomarkers were analyzed and associated with outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy patients with metastatic RCC, including clear cell (ccRCC; n = 63) and non-clear cell (ncc; n = 7) histologies, received atezolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks. PD-L1 expression was scored at four diagnostic levels (0/1/2/3) that were based on PD-L1 staining on tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) with the SP142 assay. Primary end points were safety and toxicity; secondary end points assessed clinical activity per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and immune-related response criteria. Plasma and tissue were analyzed for potential biomarkers of atezolizumab response. RESULTS: Grade 3 treatment-related and immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 17% and 4% of patients, respectively, and there were no grade 4 or 5 events. Sixty-three patients with ccRCC were evaluable for overall survival (median, 28.9 months; 95% CI, 20.0 months to not reached) and progression-free survival (median, 5.6 months; 95% CI, 3.9 to 8.2 months), and 62 patients were evaluable for objective response rate (ORR; 15%; 95% CI, 7% to 26%). ORR was evaluated on the basis of PD-L1 IC expression (IC1/2/3: n = 33; 18%; 95% CI, 7% to 35%; and IC0: n = 22; 9%; 95% CI, 1% to 29%). The ORR for patients with Fuhrman grade 4 and/or sarcomatoid histology was 22% (n = 18; 95% CI, 6% to 48%). Decreases in circulating plasma markers and acute-phase proteins and an increased baseline effector T-cell-to-regulatory T-cell gene expression ratio correlated with response to atezolizumab. CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in patients with metastatic RCC. Correlative studies identified potential predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers. These results have guided ongoing studies and combinations with atezolizumab in RCC.
PURPOSE: The objective was to determine the safety and clinical activity of atezolizumab (MPDL3280A), a humanized programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Exploratory biomarkers were analyzed and associated with outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy patients with metastatic RCC, including clear cell (ccRCC; n = 63) and non-clear cell (ncc; n = 7) histologies, received atezolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks. PD-L1 expression was scored at four diagnostic levels (0/1/2/3) that were based on PD-L1 staining on tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) with the SP142 assay. Primary end points were safety and toxicity; secondary end points assessed clinical activity per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and immune-related response criteria. Plasma and tissue were analyzed for potential biomarkers of atezolizumab response. RESULTS: Grade 3 treatment-related and immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 17% and 4% of patients, respectively, and there were no grade 4 or 5 events. Sixty-three patients with ccRCC were evaluable for overall survival (median, 28.9 months; 95% CI, 20.0 months to not reached) and progression-free survival (median, 5.6 months; 95% CI, 3.9 to 8.2 months), and 62 patients were evaluable for objective response rate (ORR; 15%; 95% CI, 7% to 26%). ORR was evaluated on the basis of PD-L1 IC expression (IC1/2/3: n = 33; 18%; 95% CI, 7% to 35%; and IC0: n = 22; 9%; 95% CI, 1% to 29%). The ORR for patients with Fuhrman grade 4 and/or sarcomatoid histology was 22% (n = 18; 95% CI, 6% to 48%). Decreases in circulating plasma markers and acute-phase proteins and an increased baseline effector T-cell-to-regulatory T-cell gene expression ratio correlated with response to atezolizumab. CONCLUSION:Atezolizumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in patients with metastatic RCC. Correlative studies identified potential predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers. These results have guided ongoing studies and combinations with atezolizumab in RCC.
Authors: Anurag K Singh; Timothy B Winslow; Mohammad Habiby Kermany; Vincent Goritz; Lilia Heit; Austin Miller; Nicholas C Hoffend; Leighton C Stein; Lalith K Kumaraswamy; Graham W Warren; Wiam Bshara; Kunle Odunsi; Junko Matsuzaki; Scott I Abrams; Thomas Schwaab; Jason B Muhitch Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Cedric Lebacle; Aydin Pooli; Thomas Bessede; Jacques Irani; Allan J Pantuck; Alexandra Drakaki Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Hui Yu; Cory Batenchuk; Andrzej Badzio; Theresa A Boyle; Piotr Czapiewski; Daniel C Chan; Xian Lu; Dexiang Gao; Kim Ellison; Ashley A Kowalewski; Christopher J Rivard; Rafal Dziadziuszko; Caicun Zhou; Maen Hussein; Donald Richards; Sharon Wilks; Marc Monte; William Edenfield; Jerome Goldschmidt; Ray Page; Brian Ulrich; David Waterhouse; Sandra Close; Jacek Jassem; Kimary Kulig; Fred R Hirsch Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Stephen Chia; Phillipe L Bedard; John Hilton; Eitan Amir; Karen Gelmon; Rachel Goodwin; Diego Villa; Michael Cabanero; Dongsheng Tu; Ming Tsao; Lesley Seymour Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-08-16
Authors: Franziska Erlmeier; Wilko Weichert; Andres Jan Schrader; Michael Autenrieth; Arndt Hartmann; Sandra Steffens; Philipp Ivanyi Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Aaron M Goodman; David Piccioni; Shumei Kato; Amélie Boichard; Huan-You Wang; Garrett Frampton; Scott M Lippman; Caitlin Connelly; David Fabrizio; Vincent Miller; Jason K Sicklick; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 31.777