Explore the vast range of titles available.

The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2–34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3–not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55–0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7–18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1–12·5]; 0·71 [0·60–0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

MET (also known as hepatocyte growth factor receptor) signalling is a key driver of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Given that no optimal therapy for metastatic PRCC exists, we aimed to compare an existing standard of care, sunitinib, with the MET kinase inhibitors cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of patients with PRCC. We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 65 centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic PRCC who had received up to one previous therapy (excluding vascular endothelial growth factor-directed and MET-directed agents). Patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib, with stratification by receipt of previous therapy and PRCC subtype. All drug doses were administered orally: sunitinib 50 mg, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off (dose reductions to 37·5 mg and 25 mg allowed); cabozantinib 60 mg daily (reductions to 40 mg and 20 mg allowed); crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (reductions to 200 mg twice daily and 250 mg once daily allowed); and savolitinib 600 mg daily (reductions to 400 mg and 200 mg allowed). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population, with patients who did not receive protocol therapy excluded from safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02761057. Between April 5, 2016, and Dec 15, 2019, 152 patients were randomly assigned to one of four study groups. Five patients were identified as ineligible post-randomisation and were excluded from these analyses, resulting in 147 eligible patients. Assignment to the savolitinib (29 patients) and crizotinib (28 patients) groups was halted after a prespecified futility analysis; planned accrual was completed for both sunitinib (46 patients) and cabozantinib (44 patients) groups. PFS was longer in patients in the cabozantinib group (median 9·0 months, 95% CI 6–12) than in the sunitinib group (5·6 months, 3–7; hazard ratio for progression or death 0·60, 0·37–0·97, one-sided p=0·019). Response rate for cabozantinib was 23% versus 4% for sunitinib (two-sided p=0·010). Savolitinib and crizotinib did not improve PFS compared with sunitinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 31 (69%) of 45 patients receiving sunitinib, 32 (74%) of 43 receiving cabozantinib, ten (37%) of 27 receiving crizotinib, and 11 (39%) of 28 receiving savolitinib; one grade 5 thromboembolic event was recorded in the cabozantinib group. Cabozantinib treatment resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sunitinib in patients with metastatic PRCC. National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.

We report on molecular analyses of baseline tumor samples from the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial ( n  = 886; NCT02684006 ), which demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We found that neither expression of the commonly assessed biomarker programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) nor tumor mutational burden differentiated PFS in either study arm. Similarly, the presence of FcɣR single nucleotide polymorphisms was unimpactful. We identified important biological features associated with differential PFS between the treatment arms, including new immunomodulatory and angiogenesis gene expression signatures (GESs), previously undescribed mutational profiles and their corresponding GESs, and several HLA types. These findings provide insight into the determinants of response to combined PD-1/PD-L1 and angiogenic pathway inhibition and may aid in the development of strategies for improved patient care in aRCC. Biomarker analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial uncovers molecular determinants of therapy-specific outcomes, which may inform personalized treatment strategies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

In the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER. In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment. Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0–26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20–3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17–0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84–1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28–0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58–5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14–0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01–0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08–0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56–0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50–0·80], nominal p=0·0001). PROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Bristol Myers Squibb.

The underexplored potential of PD-L1 blockade in advanced renal cell carcinoma highlights an urgent need for novel agents. This trial aimed to compare benmelstobart (a novel PD-L1 inhibitor) plus anlotinib with sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. ETER100 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial conducted at 37 medical sites in China. We included patients aged 18–80 years, who had previously untreated, advanced, clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive either benmelstobart (intravenous, 1200 mg, once every 3 weeks) plus anlotinib (oral, 12 mg, once daily for the first 2 weeks of a 3-week cycle) or sunitinib (oral, 50 mg, once daily for the first 4 weeks of a 6-week cycle) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, investigator's decision, or patient withdrawal. Randomisation was done centrally with stratified block randomisation (block size 4) and stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 in the full analysis set (ie, randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug without the violation of key inclusion criteria) and per-protocol set (ie, randomly assigned patients who received at least one cycle of protocol treatment without major protocol violations and had at least one efficacy assessment). In this Article, we report the results of a prespecified interim analysis. This ongoing study, closed to recruitment, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04523272. Between Aug 25, 2020, and Feb 6, 2023, we assessed 687 patients for eligibility, 531 (77%) of whom were randomly assigned to receive either benmelstobart plus anlotinib (266 [50%] patients) or sunitinib (265 [50%] patients). 527 (99%) patients were included in the full analysis set (263 [50%] patients who received benmelstobart plus anlotinib and 264 [50%] who received sunitinib). All patients were Chinese (400 [76%] men and 127 [24%] women), with a median age of 60 years (IQR 54–67). As of the cutoff date (Jan 31, 2024), the median follow-up was 22·8 months (IQR 15·2–29·7). In the full analysis set, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with benmelstobart plus anlotinib than with sunitinib (19·0 months [95% CI 15·3–22·8] vs 9·8 months [8·4–12·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·42–0·67]; p<0·0001). In the per-protocol set, median progression-free survival was 19·0 months (16·5–22·8) in the benmelstobart–anlotinib group versus 11·0 months (8·5–13·6) in the sunitinib group (HR 0·55 [0·43–0·70]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (occurring in 91 [34%] of 264 patients in the benmelstobart–anlotinib group vs 55 [21%] of 264 in the sunitinib group). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 63 (24%) patients in the benmelstobart–anlotinib group and in 42 (16%) patients in the sunitinib group. In the benmelstobart–anlotinib group, three (1%) deaths occurred due to treatment-related adverse events (one each with cardiac-respiratory arrest, unknown reason, and renal failure) and no deaths occurred in the sunitinib group. Benmelstobart plus anlotinib improved progression-free survival compared with sunitinib among patients with previously untreated, advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. These findings suggest the potential of benmelstobart plus anlotinib as a treatment option for this population. Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group and CSCO Clinical Oncology Research Foundation. For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Background Immunotherapy-based combinations have emerged as standard therapies for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, combined with epacadostat, an indoleamine 2,3-deoxygenase 1 selective inhibitor, demonstrated promising antitumor activity in a phase 1 study in advanced solid tumors, including mRCC. Methods KEYNOTE-679/ECHO-302 was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 study (NCT03260894) that compared pembrolizumab plus epacadostat with sunitinib or pazopanib as first-line treatment for mRCC. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC and had not received systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks plus epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily versus sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off treatment) or pazopanib 800 mg orally once daily. Original dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. Enrollment was stopped when a phase 3 study in melanoma of pembrolizumab plus epacadostat compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy did not meet its primary end point. This protocol was amended, and primary end point was changed to investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. Results One-hundred-twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus epacadostat ( n  = 64) or sunitinib/pazopanib ( n  = 65). Median (range) follow-up, defined as time from randomization to data cutoff, was 10.3 months (2.2–14.3) and 10.3 months (2.7–13.8) in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (31.3% [95% CI 20.2–44.1] and sunitinib/pazopanib (29.2% [18.6–41.8]). Grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.4% and 42.9% of patients in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. One patient in the sunitinib/pazopanib arm died of septic shock (not treatment-related). Circulating kynurenine levels decreased in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat arm, but not to levels observed in healthy subjects. Conclusions ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Safety and tolerability appeared similar between treatment arms; no new safety concerns were identified. Antitumor responses observed in patients with RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus epacadostat may be driven primarily by pembrolizumab. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03260894 .

BackgroundSunitinib is approved for treatment of adults with imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) or imatinib intolerance.MethodsThis single-arm, multicenter, multinational phase I/II clinical trial (NCT01396148) enrolled eligible patients aged 6 to < 18 years with advanced, unresectable GIST with non-mutant KIT, or who demonstrated disease progression or intolerance to imatinib. Patients received sunitinib 15 mg/m2 per day, 4-weeks-on/2-weeks-off (schedule 4/2), for ≤ 18 cycles over 24 months. Intra-patient dose escalation to 22.5 and subsequently 30 mg/m2 were permitted based on individual patient tolerability and supported by real-time pharmacokinetics (PK). Primary objective was PK characterization. Secondary objectives included safety, antitumor activity and PK/pharmacodynamic relationships.ResultsSix patients were enrolled with median (range) age of 14 (13–16) years. All six patients completed at least three treatment cycles, with one completing all 18 cycles. Five patients had a dose increase to 22.5 mg/m2; two of them had a further dose increase to 30 mg/m2. The average daily dose at cycle 3 was 21.1 mg/m2 (n = 6). Steady-state plasma concentrations were reached by day 15, cycle 1. No tumor responses were observed, but three patients had stabilization of the disease (50%). Median progression-free survival was 5.8 months (95% CI 2.3—not reached). There were no serious adverse events.ConclusionsThe tolerable dose of sunitinib in chemotherapy-naïve pediatric patients is at least 20 mg/m2 on schedule 4/2. The safety profile and PK of sunitinib in pediatric patients with GIST are comparable to those in adults.

BackgroundImmunotherapy can be associated with prolonged disease control even after cessation of treatment without the need for further cancer-directed therapy. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) can also persist after discontinuation of therapy. Treatment-free survival (TFS) with and without toxicity as a component of a partitioned survival model can characterize patient survival time, which is not captured by standard outcome measures.MethodsData from 1096 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the CheckMate 214 trial were analyzed. TFS was defined as the area between two Kaplan-Meier curves for time from randomization to protocol therapy discontinuation and time from randomization to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated as the difference in 60-month restricted mean times with confidence intervals (CIs) obtained using bootstrap sampling. Time on protocol therapy and TFS were further characterized as time with and without grade 2+ and 3+TRAEs. Survival functions were estimated in subgroups including International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsAt 5 years from randomization, 48% of patients treated with NIVO+IPI and 37% of patients treated with SUN were alive. In the intent-to-treat population, 18% of the NIVO+IPI-treated and 5% of SUN-treated patients are surviving treatment-free. For favorable-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 14.4 months for NIVO+IPI versus 5.5 months for SUN (difference 8.9 months (95% CI 4.9 to 12.8)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 5.0 and 2.1 months, respectively, and with grade 3+TRAEs was 1.2 and 0.3 months, respectively. For intermediate/poor-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 10.1 months for NIVO+IPI versus 4.1 months for SUN (difference 6.1 months (95% CI 4.2 to 7.9)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 4.0 versus 2.0 months, respectively, and 0.6 versus 0.3 months with grade 3+TRAEs.ConclusionsAlthough overall survival was similar, favorable-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI spent more time surviving treatment-free with and without toxicity versus SUN after 60 months of follow-up. Intermediate/poor-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI had longer survival and longer TFS without toxicity versus SUN.Trial registration number NCT02231749.

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer might be as effective as chemotherapy, with a better toxicity profile. Blocking a crucial process such as angiogenesis with sunitinib may have a synergistic effect with NET. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant sunitinib plus exemestane in early-stage HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer. In this phase I/II study, postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2− stage II-III breast cancer received neoadjuvant exemestane at conventional dose of 25mg plus sunitinib in a 3 + 3 design at 25mg (3/1weeks scheme) or 37.5mg continuous dose, for 6 months. Coprimary endpoints were the recommended dose of sunitinib combined with exemestane and objective response. Secondary endpoints included safety and biomarkers of early response. For 15 months, 18 patients were enrolled, 15 at sunitinib 25mg and 3 at 37.5mg. Median age was 73, 77% of patients had T2 tumors and 67% node-positive disease. The most common grade 2 toxicity was asthenia (44%), as was hypertension (22%) for grade 3. No grade 4–5 were reported. Twelve patients (66%) achieved an objective response. VEGFR-2 levels significantly decreased after one month of treatment. Differential gene expression analysis showed downregulation of ESR1 , PGR and NAT1 in post-treatment samples and upregulation of EGFR , MYC , SFRP1 , and FOXC1 . PAM50 analysis on 83% of patients showed a prevalence of luminal A subtype, both in pre-treatment (63.6%) and post-treatment tumors (54.5%). Sunitinib plus exemestane was associated with substantial yet reversible toxicities, providing safety, efficacy and biological impact insights of combining an antiangiogenic drug with hormone therapy in early-stage breast cancer. Trial registration : Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00931450. 02/07/2009

Ripretinib (DCC-2618) is a novel, type II tyrosine switch control inhibitor designed to broadly inhibit activating and drug-resistant mutations in and . Ripretinib has emerged as a promising investigational agent for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor owing to targeted inhibition of secondary resistance mutations that may develop following treatment with prior line(s) of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Here we describe the rationale and design of intrigue (NCT03673501), a global, randomized (1:1), open-label, Phase III study comparing the safety and efficacy of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor following imatinib. The primary end point is progression-free survival and key secondary objectives include objective response rate and overall survival. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03673501