Mauricio Burotto1, Maureen Edgerly2, Margarita Velarde2, Sanjeeve Balasubramaniam3, Harry Drabkin4, Juan G Gormaz5, Ciara O'Sullivan6, Ravi Madan2, Tito Fojo7. 1. Clínica Alemana de Santiago, Santiago, Chile mauricioburotto@yahoo.com. 2. National Cancer Institute (NCI), Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. 4. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. 5. Clínica Alemana de Santiago, Santiago, Chile. 6. Mayo Clinic, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 7. Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
The unproven hypothesis that angiogenesis is a key step in the development and metastasis of solid tumors [1], especially mRCC [2], led to the development of a large number of agents whose putative target was the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. Several of these agent were shown to have modest activity in the therapy of mRCC and this led to their approval by regulatory agencies. However, given their limited activity, their use in combinations has been extensively explored. We studied the combination of ixabepilone, a microtubule‐targeting epothilone [3], [4], with bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds VEGF.Preclinical data from several in vivo models including breast, kidney, lung, and colon cancers demonstrated increased activity of ixabepilone in combination with bevacizumab, suggesting a synergistic effect in both antitumor and antiangiogenic activities and the absence of overlapping toxicities [5]. More recently, randomized trials reported acceptable activities and toxicities of combined therapy in platinum/taxane‐resistant cervical‐uterine [6] and locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer [7].Best percentage change from baseline for target lesions per patient.This investigation was designed as a single‐arm phase II multi‐center trial with a primary aim of determining the objective response rate of ixabepilone plus bevacizumab using RECIST criteria in patients with relapsed or refractory mRCC. We also evaluated PFS, OS, and toxicities of the combined therapy. The observed activity of the combined therapy was less than originally expected, considering results in an earlier phase II study of ixabepilone in renal cancer that demonstrated an objective response rate of 13% [16]. Regarding side effects, the tested combination was well tolerated without major side effects or deaths related to treatment.Despite the low response rate of 11.3%, the median PFS of 8.3 month and OS of 15 months compare favorably with putative antiangiogenic agents approved for mRCC in second‐line treatment before 2015 [8], [9], [10]. Furthermore, with a median number of two previous lines of treatment, a majority of patients were receiving this treatment in third line, making this combination potentially active in the third‐line setting. However, recent advances in immunotherapy for RCC restrict the potential scope of this combination.
Trial Information
Renal cell carcinoma – clear cellMetastatic/Advanced1 prior regimenPhase IISingle armOverall response rateOverall survivalProgression‐free survivalToxicityActive but results overtaken by other developments
Drug Information for Phase II Ixabepilone + Bevacizumab
IxabepiloneIxempraBristol‐Myers SquibbMicrotubule inhibitorMicrotubule‐targeting agent6 milligrams (mg) per squared meter (m2)IVBevacizumabAvastinGenentech/RocheAntibodyAngiogenesis ‐ VEGF15 milligrams (mg) per kilogram (kg)IV
Patient Characteristics for Phase II Ixabepilone + Bevacizumab
Secondary Assessment Method for Phase II Ixabepilone + Bevacizumab (PFS)
30months
Secondary Assessment Method for Phase II Ixabepilone + Bevacizumab (OS)
30months
Adverse Events: Phase II Ixabepilone + Bevacizumab
Abbreviation: NC/NA, no change from baseline/no adverse event.
Assessment, Analysis, and Discussion
Study completedActive but results overtaken by other developmentsRenal cell carcinoma is among the ten most frequently diagnosed cancers in the general population in the U.S. [2], with approximately 63,000 new cases and almost 14,000 deaths from RCC each year [12]. Given its refractory nature, mRCC remains a difficult problem with 5‐year survival rates of 8% [2].Interest in the angiogenesis hypothesis, especially its putative role in RCC led to the development of innumerable “antiangiogenic agents” that sought to interdict signaling through the VEGF pathway. Despite the approval of several similar agents for the treatment of mRCC by regulatory agencies, efficacy was modest and short‐lived, in part due to the emergence of resistance [13]. This has provided the impetus to develop combination regimens using antiangiogenic agents in the hopes of improving therapeutic efficacy. For example, although initial studies with single‐agent bevacizumab in patients with mRCC demonstrated a significant increase in time to progression [14], its efficacy was not consider sufficient for use as a single agent. It was then explored and subsequently approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of mRCC in combination with interferon alfa, based on the results of a phase III trial [15]. With this background, we embarked on a clinical trial exploring the activity of the combination of bevacizumab with ixabepilone. In preclinical studies, ixabepilone, a non‐taxane microtubule‐stabilizing agent, had been shown to be active against cancer cell lines intrinsically insensitive to taxanes as well as cell lines that had developed resistance. To date, the only regulatory approval for ixabepilone is in metastatic breast cancer as a monotherapy or in combination with capecitabine based on an open‐label phase III trial that enrolled 752 patients [16].In mRCC, we initially explored the activity of ixabepilone monotherapy in previously untreated patients [16] using the same schedule of administration—6 mg/m2/day, for 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks—used in combination with bevacizumab in this trial. In the previous trial, the overall response rate was 13% with a median duration of response of 5.5 months and an OS of 19.25 months [16]. This regimen is different from that approved in breast cancer (40 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) and was chosen because of the lower rate of neurotoxicity. Another phase II trial with the 40 mg/m2 every 3 weeks was published with 12 patients and no objective responses [17]. Given that both ixabepilone and bevacizumab had demonstrated modest activity in mRCC, appeared not to have overlapping toxicities, and had shown encouraging activity in preclinical models, we chose to explore the combination of ixabepilone plus bevacizumab in mRCC. The results demonstrated the combination was well tolerated with modest activity.In our view, the recent approval of cabozantinib [18] and especially nivolumab [19] for the therapy of mRCC in second line [2] make the further development of the tested combination very difficult. Accrual for this trial that began in 2009 was challenging and would be even more challenging in 2017.
Abbreviation: NC/NA, no change from baseline/no adverse event.
Authors: Bernard Escudier; Tim Eisen; Walter M Stadler; Cezary Szczylik; Stéphane Oudard; Michael Siebels; Sylvie Negrier; Christine Chevreau; Ewa Solska; Apurva A Desai; Frédéric Rolland; Tomasz Demkow; Thomas E Hutson; Martin Gore; Scott Freeman; Brian Schwartz; Minghua Shan; Ronit Simantov; Ronald M Bukowski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hope S Rugo; William T Barry; Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia; Alan P Lyss; Constance Cirrincione; Eleanor Leung; Erica L Mayer; Michael Naughton; Deborah Toppmeyer; Lisa A Carey; Edith A Perez; Clifford Hudis; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Edwin M Posadas; Samir Undevia; Elizabeth Manchen; James L Wade; A Dimitrios Colevas; Theodore Karrison; Everett E Vokes; Walter M Stadler Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Francis Y F Lee; Kelly L Covello; Stephen Castaneda; Donald R Hawken; David Kan; Anne Lewin; Mei-Li Wen; Rolf-Peter Ryseck; Craig R Fairchild; Joseph Fargnoli; Robert Kramer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-12-15 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