Thomas Powles1, Mark R Lackner2, Stéphane Oudard2, Bernard Escudier2, Christy Ralph2, Janet E Brown2, Robert E Hawkins2, Daniel Castellano2, Brian I Rini2, Michael D Staehler2, Alain Ravaud2, Wei Lin2, Bridget O'Keeffe2, Yulei Wang2, Shan Lu2, Jill M Spoerke2, Ling-Yuh Huw2, Michelle Byrtek2, Rui Zhu2, Joseph A Ware2, Robert J Motzer2. 1. Thomas Powles, Queen Mary University of London, London; Christy Ralph, University of Leeds, Leeds; Janet E. Brown, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Robert E. Hawkins, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Mark R. Lackner, Wei Lin, Bridget O'Keeffe, Yulei Wang, Shan Lu, Jill M. Spoerke, Ling Yuh Huw, Michelle Byrtek, Rui Zhu, and Joseph A. Ware, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA; Robert J. Motzer, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Brian I. Rini, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH; Bernard Escudier, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif; Alain Ravaud, Hospital Saint Andre, Bordeaux; Stéphane Oudard, University Paris Descartes, Paris, France; Daniel Castellano, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain; and Michael D. Staehler, University Hospital Munich-Grosshadern, Marchioninistrasse, Germany thomas.powles@bartsandthelondon.nhs.uk. 2. Thomas Powles, Queen Mary University of London, London; Christy Ralph, University of Leeds, Leeds; Janet E. Brown, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Robert E. Hawkins, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Mark R. Lackner, Wei Lin, Bridget O'Keeffe, Yulei Wang, Shan Lu, Jill M. Spoerke, Ling Yuh Huw, Michelle Byrtek, Rui Zhu, and Joseph A. Ware, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA; Robert J. Motzer, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Brian I. Rini, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH; Bernard Escudier, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif; Alain Ravaud, Hospital Saint Andre, Bordeaux; Stéphane Oudard, University Paris Descartes, Paris, France; Daniel Castellano, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain; and Michael D. Staehler, University Hospital Munich-Grosshadern, Marchioninistrasse, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare dual inhibition of PI3K/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) by apitolisib (GDC-0980) against single inhibition of mTORC1 by everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clear-cell mRCC who progressed on or after vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy were randomly assigned to apitolisib 40 mg once per day or to everolimus 10 mg once per day. End points included progression-free survival, safety, overall survival, and objective response rate. Biomarker assessments were conducted. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were randomly assigned. After 67 events, stratified analysis revealed that median progression-free survival was significantly shorter for apitolisib than for everolimus (3.7 v 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.23 to 3.63; P < .01]); apitolisib was not favored in any stratification subgroup. Median overall survival was not significantly different but trended in favor of everolimus (16.5 v 22.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 0.97 to 3.24; P = .06]). The objective response rate was 7.1% for apitolisib and 11.6% for everolimus. Patients administered apitolisib with a greater incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more likely to discontinue treatment (31% v 12% for everolimus). No drug-related deaths were observed. Apitolisib in comparison with everolimus was associated with substantially more high-grade hyperglycemia (40% v 9%) and rash (24% v 2%). Apitolisib pharmacokinetics suggested a relationship between exposure, and rash and hyperglycemia. Retrospective biomarker analyses revealed a relationship between VHL mutation status and outcome with everolimus but not with apitolisib. High hypoxia-inducible factor 1α protein expression was associated with better outcome in both arms. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that dual PI3K/mTOR inhibition by apitolisib was less effective than was everolimus in mRCC, likely because full blockade of PI3K/mTOR signaling resulted in multiple on-target adverse events. VHL mutation and hypoxia-inducible factor 1α expression may be predictive of an mTOR inhibitor benefit, although prospective validation is required.
PURPOSE: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare dual inhibition of PI3K/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) by apitolisib (GDC-0980) against single inhibition of mTORC1 by everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clear-cell mRCC who progressed on or after vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy were randomly assigned to apitolisib 40 mg once per day or to everolimus 10 mg once per day. End points included progression-free survival, safety, overall survival, and objective response rate. Biomarker assessments were conducted. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were randomly assigned. After 67 events, stratified analysis revealed that median progression-free survival was significantly shorter for apitolisib than for everolimus (3.7 v 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.23 to 3.63; P < .01]); apitolisib was not favored in any stratification subgroup. Median overall survival was not significantly different but trended in favor of everolimus (16.5 v 22.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 0.97 to 3.24; P = .06]). The objective response rate was 7.1% for apitolisib and 11.6% for everolimus. Patients administered apitolisib with a greater incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more likely to discontinue treatment (31% v 12% for everolimus). No drug-related deaths were observed. Apitolisib in comparison with everolimus was associated with substantially more high-grade hyperglycemia (40% v 9%) and rash (24% v 2%). Apitolisib pharmacokinetics suggested a relationship between exposure, and rash and hyperglycemia. Retrospective biomarker analyses revealed a relationship between VHL mutation status and outcome with everolimus but not with apitolisib. High hypoxia-inducible factor 1α protein expression was associated with better outcome in both arms. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that dual PI3K/mTOR inhibition by apitolisib was less effective than was everolimus in mRCC, likely because full blockade of PI3K/mTOR signaling resulted in multiple on-target adverse events. VHL mutation and hypoxia-inducible factor 1α expression may be predictive of an mTOR inhibitor benefit, although prospective validation is required.
Authors: Katrin Düvel; Jessica L Yecies; Suchithra Menon; Pichai Raman; Alex I Lipovsky; Amanda L Souza; Ellen Triantafellow; Qicheng Ma; Regina Gorski; Stephen Cleaver; Matthew G Vander Heiden; Jeffrey P MacKeigan; Peter M Finan; Clary B Clish; Leon O Murphy; Brendan D Manning Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2010-07-30 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: Alain Ravaud; Shweta R Urva; Kai Grosch; Wing K Cheung; Oezlem Anak; Dalila B Sellami Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Eric Jonasch; P Andrew Futreal; Ian J Davis; Sean T Bailey; William Y Kim; James Brugarolas; Amato J Giaccia; Ghada Kurban; Armin Pause; Judith Frydman; Amado J Zurita; Brian I Rini; Pam Sharma; Michael B Atkins; Cheryl L Walker; W Kimryn Rathmell Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2012-05-25 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Jennifer Bacik; Lawrence H Schwartz; Victor Reuter; Paul Russo; Stephanie Marion; Madhu Mazumdar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gary Hudes; Michael Carducci; Piotr Tomczak; Janice Dutcher; Robert Figlin; Anil Kapoor; Elzbieta Staroslawska; Jeffrey Sosman; David McDermott; István Bodrogi; Zoran Kovacevic; Vladimir Lesovoy; Ingo G H Schmidt-Wolf; Olga Barbarash; Erhan Gokmen; Timothy O'Toole; Stephanie Lustgarten; Laurence Moore; Robert J Motzer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jill M Spoerke; Carol O'Brien; Ling Huw; Hartmut Koeppen; Jane Fridlyand; Rainer K Brachmann; Peter M Haverty; Ajay Pandita; Sankar Mohan; Deepak Sampath; Lori S Friedman; Leanne Ross; Garret M Hampton; Lukas C Amler; David S Shames; Mark R Lackner Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Erica B Schleifman; Rupal Desai; Jill M Spoerke; Yuanyuan Xiao; Cheryl Wong; Ilma Abbas; Carol O'Brien; Rajesh Patel; Teiko Sumiyoshi; Ling Fu; Rachel N Tam; Hartmut Koeppen; Timothy R Wilson; Rajiv Raja; Garret M Hampton; Mark R Lackner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: E Jonasch; E Hasanov; P G Corn; T Moss; K R Shaw; S Stovall; V Marcott; B Gan; S Bird; X Wang; K A Do; P F Altamirano; A J Zurita; L A Doyle; P N Lara; N M Tannir Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: David A Fruman; Honyin Chiu; Benjamin D Hopkins; Shubha Bagrodia; Lewis C Cantley; Robert T Abraham Journal: Cell Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: J H Lee; Y-S Han; Y M Yoon; C W Yun; S P Yun; S M Kim; H Y Kwon; D Jeong; M J Baek; H J Lee; S-J Lee; H J Han; S H Lee Journal: Oncogene Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Vicky Makker; Fernando O Recio; Ling Ma; Ursula A Matulonis; Jennifer O Lauchle; Hema Parmar; Houston N Gilbert; Joseph A Ware; Rui Zhu; Shan Lu; Ling-Yuh Huw; Yulei Wang; Hartmut Koeppen; Jill M Spoerke; Mark R Lackner; Carol A Aghajanian Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: James J Hsieh; Mark P Purdue; Sabina Signoretti; Charles Swanton; Laurence Albiges; Manuela Schmidinger; Daniel Y Heng; James Larkin; Vincenzo Ficarra Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Aaron T Scott; Michelle Weitz; Patrick J Breheny; Po Hien Ear; Benjamin Darbro; Bart J Brown; Terry A Braun; Guiying Li; Shaikamjad Umesalma; Courtney A Kaemmer; Chandra K Maharjan; Dawn E Quelle; Andrew M Bellizzi; Chandrikha Chandrasekharan; Joseph S Dillon; Thomas M O'Dorisio; James R Howe Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 12.531