Saby George1, Robert J Motzer2, Hans J Hammers3, Bruce G Redman4, Timothy M Kuzel5, Scott S Tykodi6, Elizabeth R Plimack7, Joel Jiang8, Ian M Waxman9, Brian I Rini10. 1. Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York. 2. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor. 5. Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle. 7. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. Global Biometric Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey. 9. Global Clinical Research, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey. 10. Department of Hematology and Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Response patterns with immunotherapy may differ from those of other treatments. This warrants further investigation because some patients may benefit from continued immunotherapy beyond Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined first progression. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and potential benefit of treatment with nivolumab, a programmed cell death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, beyond investigator-assessed first progression in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Subgroup analysis of a blinded, randomized, multicenter, phase 2 dose-ranging trial initiated May 31, 2011, including patients with clear-cell mRCC previously treated withantiangiogenic therapy. Data cutoffs for this subgroup analysis were May 15, 2013, for progression-free survival and objective response rate and March 5, 2014, for overall survival and duration of response. In this analysis, patients treated beyond first progression received their last dose of nivolumab more than 6 weeks after RECIST-defined progression, and patients not treated beyond first progression discontinued nivolumab before or at RECIST-defined progression. INTERVENTIONS:Nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Safety and efficacy of nivolumab treatment. RESULTS: Of 168 patients (median [range] age, 61 [37-81] years; 72% male) randomized to nivolumab, 154 experienced progression (36 were treated beyond first progression, 26 were treated beyond first progression for ≤6 weeks, and 92 were not treated beyond first progression), 13 were treated and did not experience progression, and 1 was not treated. Prior to first progression, the RECIST-defined objective response rate was 14% (5 patients) and 16% (15 patients), and median progression-free survival was 4.2 (95% CI, 2.8-5.5) and 2.6 (95% CI, 1.5-3.9) months in patients treated and not treated beyond progression, respectively. Following initial progression, 25 (69%) patients treated beyond progression experienced subsequent tumor reduction or stabilization in target lesion size. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was higher in patients treated beyond progression (n = 29 [81%]) vs those not treated beyond progression (n = 61 [66%]); however, after adjusting for length of treatment exposure, incidence was lower in patients treated beyond progression (322.9 vs 518.7 incidence rate/100 patient-years for patients treated vs not treated beyond progression). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this subgroup analysis, a proportion of patients who continued treatment beyond RECIST-defined first progression demonstrated sustained reductions in tumor burden or stabilization in the size of target lesions, with an acceptable safety profile. Further analysis will help define the clinical benefit for patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab beyond progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01354431.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: Response patterns with immunotherapy may differ from those of other treatments. This warrants further investigation because some patients may benefit from continued immunotherapy beyond Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined first progression. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and potential benefit of treatment with nivolumab, a programmed cell death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, beyond investigator-assessed first progression in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Subgroup analysis of a blinded, randomized, multicenter, phase 2 dose-ranging trial initiated May 31, 2011, including patients with clear-cell mRCC previously treated with antiangiogenic therapy. Data cutoffs for this subgroup analysis were May 15, 2013, for progression-free survival and objective response rate and March 5, 2014, for overall survival and duration of response. In this analysis, patients treated beyond first progression received their last dose of nivolumab more than 6 weeks after RECIST-defined progression, and patients not treated beyond first progression discontinued nivolumab before or at RECIST-defined progression. INTERVENTIONS:Nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Safety and efficacy of nivolumab treatment. RESULTS: Of 168 patients (median [range] age, 61 [37-81] years; 72% male) randomized to nivolumab, 154 experienced progression (36 were treated beyond first progression, 26 were treated beyond first progression for ≤6 weeks, and 92 were not treated beyond first progression), 13 were treated and did not experience progression, and 1 was not treated. Prior to first progression, the RECIST-defined objective response rate was 14% (5 patients) and 16% (15 patients), and median progression-free survival was 4.2 (95% CI, 2.8-5.5) and 2.6 (95% CI, 1.5-3.9) months in patients treated and not treated beyond progression, respectively. Following initial progression, 25 (69%) patients treated beyond progression experienced subsequent tumor reduction or stabilization in target lesion size. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was higher in patients treated beyond progression (n = 29 [81%]) vs those not treated beyond progression (n = 61 [66%]); however, after adjusting for length of treatment exposure, incidence was lower in patients treated beyond progression (322.9 vs 518.7 incidence rate/100 patient-years for patients treated vs not treated beyond progression). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this subgroup analysis, a proportion of patients who continued treatment beyond RECIST-defined first progression demonstrated sustained reductions in tumor burden or stabilization in the size of target lesions, with an acceptable safety profile. Further analysis will help define the clinical benefit for patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab beyond progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01354431.
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Neeraj Agarwal; Clair Beard; Graeme B Bolger; Barry Boston; Michael A Carducci; Toni K Choueiri; Robert A Figlin; Mayer Fishman; Steven L Hancock; Gary R Hudes; Eric Jonasch; Anne Kessinger; Timothy M Kuzel; Paul H Lange; Ellis G Levine; Kim A Margolin; M Dror Michaelson; Thomas Olencki; Roberto Pili; Bruce G Redman; Cary N Robertson; Lawrence H Schwartz; Joel Sheinfeld; Jue Wang Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Brian I Rini; David F McDermott; Bruce G Redman; Timothy M Kuzel; Michael R Harrison; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Harry A Drabkin; Saby George; Theodore F Logan; Kim A Margolin; Elizabeth R Plimack; Alexandre M Lambert; Ian M Waxman; Hans J Hammers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P W Kantoff; S Halabi; M Conaway; J Picus; J Kirshner; V Hars; D Trump; E P Winer; N J Vogelzang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Axel Hoos; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Michael Binder; Oliver Bohnsack; Geoffrey Nichol; Rachel Humphrey; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Bernard Escudier; David F McDermott; Saby George; Hans J Hammers; Sandhya Srinivas; Scott S Tykodi; Jeffrey A Sosman; Giuseppe Procopio; Elizabeth R Plimack; Daniel Castellano; Toni K Choueiri; Howard Gurney; Frede Donskov; Petri Bono; John Wagstaff; Thomas C Gauler; Takeshi Ueda; Yoshihiko Tomita; Fabio A Schutz; Christian Kollmannsberger; James Larkin; Alain Ravaud; Jason S Simon; Li-An Xu; Ian M Waxman; Padmanee Sharma Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F Peisen; W Thaiss; N Tietze; S Rausch; B Amend; K Nikolaou; J Bedke; A Stenzl; S Kaufmann Journal: Urologe A Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Subashini Sharon Gnanendran; Lauren Maree Turner; James Austin Miller; Shelley Ji Eun Hwang; Andrew Charles Miller Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2020-03-19
Authors: Osama Mohamad; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Samuel Schroeder; Andrew Leiker; Alana Christie; Elizabeth Zhang-Velten; Lakshya Trivedi; Saad Khan; Neil B Desai; Aaron Laine; Kevin Albuquerque; Puneeth Iyengar; Yull Arriaga; Kevin Courtney; David E Gerber; Hans Hammers; Hak Choy; Robert Timmerman; James Brugarolas; Raquibul Hannan Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 8.110