McDermott, David F.

Abstract Background: X4P-001 is an orally bioavailable, selective, allosteric inhibitor of the chemokine receptor CXCR4, and has been shown to downregulate hypoxia inducible factor-2α (HIF-2α) and myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) trafficking in the tumor microenvironment. In multiple RCC xenograft models, the addition of X4P-001 to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), including axitinib, has demonstrated increased efficacy and delayed onset of TKI resistance. Methods: This is an ongoing phase 1/2 open-label study of X4P-001 in combination with axitinib in patients (pts) with histologically confirmed clear cell RCC (ccRCC) who have received ≥1 prior systemic therapy. The Ph1 portion of the study evaluates safety, tolerability, PK, PD, and antitumor activity of the combination using a 3+3 dose escalation schema (escalating doses of X4P-001+ axitinib at 5 mg BID). The Ph2 portion is a single-arm expansion cohort evaluating this combination treatment in ~ 45 ccRCC pts. The radiologic assessment is performed every 8 weeks with central review. Results: As of 30 June, 2017, enrollment for the Ph1 portion of the study has been completed. Sixteen (16) pts were enrolled and the median age was 64 years (range 50-76). Pts had received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range 1-5). The doses tested were 200 mg BID, 400 and 600 mg QD of X4P-001 + axitinib. There were two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed at the X4P-001 600 mg QD dose level: one pt had multiple grade (G) 2 adverse events (AEs), including anorexia, cognitive disturbance, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and somnolence; another pt had G3 dyspnea and fatigue. The MTD/RP2D was determined to be 400 mg QD of X4P-001 + axitinib. Treatment-related AEs (≥ 10%) of any grade were diarrhea, fatigue, hypertension, nausea, headache, anorexia, vomiting, dry eye, dysphonia, abnormal loss of weight, increased lipase, proteinuria, dry mouth, stomatitis, cognitive disorder, dysgeusia, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome. Treatment-related G3/4 AEs (≥ 10%) were hypertension. In addition, one pt had SAE due to G2 diarrhea and G2 creatinine elevation. Drug exposures (AUC0-24hr) at steady state (SS) are similar for 200 mg BID and 400 mg QD dose. Mean Cmax and AUC0-24hr at SS increased approximately 1.6- and 1.9-fold, respectively, from 400 mg to 600 mg QD dose. Leukocyte mobilization is a well-established surrogate marker for CXCR4 inhibition. At both 400 mg and 600 mg daily dose levels, X4P-001 demonstrated approximately 2 to 2.5-fold increase of WBC (range: 1.4-4.7 fold) and nearly 4-fold increase of CD34+ progenitor cells (range: 1.8-6.4 fold). The peak elevation of both markers occurred around 2 to 4 hours following dosing. Of the 12 clinically evaluable pts, 3 had confirmed partial response, 8 had stable disease, and 1 had progressive disease. As of 30 June 2017, 9 pts remain on study and median duration on treatment was 27 weeks (range 7.4-60). Conclusions: The combination treatment is well tolerated at a dose of 400 mg QD of X4P-001 + axitinib with preliminary evidence of clinical activity. The doses used in this phase I study were biologically active in inhibiting CXCR4 in peripheral blood as demonstrated by elevating WBC and CD34+ cell counts. The Ph2 portion of the study is ongoing. Citation Format: Michael Atkins, Richard Joseph, Thai Ho, Ulka Vaishampayan, Sarah Ali, Marc Matrana, Robert Alter, Jeff Edenfield, Yan Wang, Sarah Blanchette, Lu Gan, David McDermott. A phase 1 dose-finding study of X4P-001 (an oral CXCR4 inhibitor) and axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr B201.

431 Background: While targeting VEGF improves outcomes for mRCC pts, resistance invariably develops, often within the first year. Here, we describe the efficacy and safety of atezo (anti-PD-L1) with bev (anti-VEGF) and atezo monotherapy vs sun (TKI) in first-line mRCC. Methods: Treatment-naïve mRCC pts were enrolled in a hypothesis generating Ph II study (IMmotion150; NCT01984242) and randomized to atezo 1200 mg IV q3w + bev 15 mg/kg IV q3w, atezo alone or sun 50 mg PO QD 4 wk on/2 wk off. Crossover to atezo + bev after disease progression was allowed for pts receiving atezo or sun. PD-L1 expression was scored on tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC, SP142 IHC assay). Coprimary endpoints were PFS (RECIST v1.1 by independent review [IRF]) in ITT pts and pts with PD-L1 expression on ≥ 1% of IC (PD-L1+). Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable across arms and between ITT and PD-L1+ pts. The majority of sun and atezo pts subsequently received atezo + bev. Median survival follow up was 20.7 mo. The PFS HR in ITT pts for atezo + bev vs sun was 1.00 and 1.19 for atezo vs sun. In PD-L1+ pts, the PFS HR for atezo + bev vs sun was 0.64 and 1.03 for atezo vs sun (table). Tx-related Gr 3-4 AEs were seen in 40%, 16% and 57% of pts in the atezo + bev, atezo and sun arms, respectively. AEs leading to death occurred in 3%, 2% and 2% of pts, respectively. Conclusion: Atezo + bev resulted in encouraging antitumor activity in the PD-L1+ subgroup of first-line RCC pts. Atezo + bev safety is consistent with the known profile of atezo and bev individually. The clinical benefit of atezo + bev vs sun will be evaluated in the ongoing Ph III study IMmotion151 (NCT02420821). Clinical trial information: NCT01984242. [Table: see text]

424 Background: Programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor negatively regulates T cell-mediated responses.PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) is aberrantly expressed in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and is associated with worse prognosis. Levels of PD-L1 expressions in non-ccRCC and its association with clinicopathological features and survival are unknown. Methods: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) specimens were obtained from 97 patients with chromophobe (CHR), papillary (PAP), translocation Xp11.2 (TrL) RCC and oncoytoma (ONC) and were included in the analysis. PD-L1 expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry using a mouse monoclonal anti-PD-L1 antibody (405.9A11). The assay was validated using FFPE cell line controls known to be positive or negative for PD-L1 expression by flow cytometry. PD-L1 tumor positivity (PD-L1+) was defined as ≥5% tumor cell membrane staining. For PD-L1 expression in immune cells, a combined score based on the intensity of infiltrate and percentage of positive cells was used. Baseline characteristics including stage/grade, and survival data were collected. Comparisons between PD-L1 expression and clinicopathological features were evaluated using chisq or wilcoxon rank sum tests. Cox model tests for association of PD-L1 expression with OS in univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: Among 97 patients, 12 (12.4%) were considered PD-L1+ in tumor cells: 2/36 (5%) of CHR RCC, 5/50 (10%) of PAP RCC, 3/7 (43%) of TrL RCC, and 2/4 (50%) of ONC. PD-L1 positivity in tumor cells was significantly associated with higher stage (p=0.026) and grade (p=0.046), as well as lower OS on univariate (p=0.02) but not multivariate analysis (p=0.29). On the other hand, PD-L1 positivity by immune cells was observed in 50 (51.5%) patients: 13/36 (36%) of CHR RCC, 30/50 (60%) of PAP RCC, 6/7 (86%) of TrL RCC, and 1/4 (25%) of ONC. PD-L1 positivity in immune cells did not correlate with stage (p=0.7), grade (p=0.1) or OS (p=0.8). Conclusions: PD-L1 expression is variable in non-ccRCC and depends on histology and tumor vs. immune cells scoring. Only PD-L1 positivity in tumors cells was associated with aggressive features. Patients with non-ccRCC should not be automatically excluded from trials of agents that target the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway.

422 Background: There is significant variability in the response to VEGF-TT in mRCC with no validated predictive biomarkers. We hypothesized that whole exome analysis might identify markers of response and resistance to VEGF-TT in mRCC. Methods: mRCC patients who received first-line sunitinib or pazopanib and were in two extreme phenotypes of response were identified. Extreme responders (ER) were defined as PR or CR for ≥3 years (n=10) and primary refractory patients (PRP) were defined as PD within the first 3 months of therapy (n=10). WES was performed in pre-treatment specimens and established Broad Institute analytical pipelines were utilized to identify point mutations and copy number alterations across the exome. ER (n=4) and PRP (n=4) who were part of TCGA project for clear-cell RCC were included in this analysis. Nonsense, missense and indel mutations in established or novel RCC genes were investigated. Results: IMDC prognostic scores were not significantly different between the two groups. VHL mutations were observed at similar frequency in ER and PRP, overall 57%. Mutations in PBRM1 were identified in 7 ER (50%) vs. 1 PRP (7%) (p=0.03). In addition, mutations in TP53 were only found in PRP (p=0.09). No other gene had mutations that were associated with either response or primary refractory disease (Table). Conclusions: In this pilot study, PBRM1 mutations were associated with extreme response to VEGF-TT. However, this was exploratory, and multivariable analysis was not performed. Analysis of additional patient samples is ongoing to confirm or refute this association. If true it suggests that epigenetic effects of PBRM1 mutation may contribute to response to VEGF-TT in mRCC. [Table: see text]

616 Background: Polybromo-1 (PBRM1) and BRCA1 associated protein-1 (BAP1) are genes commonly mutated in clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and have been associated with clinical outcome. This work aims to evaluate the impact of PBRM1 and BAP1 expression by IHC in mRCC patients treated with VEGF-TT. Methods: PBRM1 and BAP1 expression was evaluated by IHC in a TMA including 146 mRCC patients. PBRM1 and BAP1 IHC scores were dichotomized as a binary variable: negative (-) or positive (+) (weak positivity was excluded). The associations of PBRM1 or BAP1 expression with baseline clinico-pathological characteristics were evaluated, as well as with overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) usingCox proportional hazards models. Results: Out of 146 patients, 116 and 109 samples had available results for PBRM1 and BAP1 staining, respectively. Overall, 90% (n = 131) patients had ccRCC. 70/116 samples (60%) were PBRM1- and 26/109 patients (24%) were BAP1-. Only 12% (n = 13) of patients had simultaneous negative PBRM1 and BAP1. While there was no association between PBRM1 expression status and clinical factors, BAP1- samples were associated with poor IMDC prognostic risk score (p = 0.004) and higher Fuhrman grade (p = 0.012). PBRM1+ patients showed a trend towards an increased risk of death and a shorter TTF compared to PBRM1- patients (OS: HR = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.92-2.07, p = 0.1; TTF: HR = 1.39, 95%CI: 0.94-2.06, p = 0.1). BAP1 expression was not independently associated with OS or TTF. Conclusions: Loss of PBRM1, but not BAP1 expression showed a trend towards longer TTF and OS in mRCC patients treated with VEGF-TT.

Abstract Purpose: We examined the hypothesis that mutations in mTOR pathway genes are associated with response to rapalogs in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Experimental Design: We studied a cohort of mRCC patients who were treated with mTOR inhibitors with distinct clinical outcomes. Tumor DNA from 79 subjects was successfully analyzed for mutations using targeted next-generation sequencing of 560 cancer genes. Responders were defined as those with partial response (PR) by RECIST v1.0 or stable disease with any tumor shrinkage for 6 months or longer. Nonresponders were defined as those with disease progression during the first 3 months of therapy. Fisher exact test assessed the association between mutation status in mTOR pathway genes and treatment response. Results: Mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 were more common in responders, 12 (28%) of 43, than nonresponders, 4 (11%) of 36 (P = 0.06). Mutations in TSC1 or TSC2 alone were also more common in responders, 9 (21%), than nonresponders, 2(6%), (P = 0.05). Furthermore, 5 (42%) of 12 subjects with PR had mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 compared with 4 (11%) of 36 nonresponders (P = 0.03). Eight additional non-mTOR pathway genes were found to be mutated in at least 4 of 79 tumors (5%); none were associated positively with response. Conclusions: In this cohort of mRCC patients, mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 were more common in patients who experienced clinical benefit from rapalogs than in those who progressed. However, a substantial fraction of responders (24 of 43, 56%) had no mTOR pathway mutation identified. Clin Cancer Res; 22(10); 2445–52. ©2016 AACR. See related commentary by Voss and Hsieh, p. 2320

Abstract Purpose: High-dose aldesleukin (HD IL2) received FDA approval for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) in 1992, producing a 14% objective response rate (ORR) and durable remissions. Retrospective studies suggested that clinical and pathologic features could predict for benefit. The Cytokine Working Group conducted this prospective trial to validate proposed predictive markers of response to HD IL2. Experimental Design: Standard HD IL2 was administered to prospectively evaluate whether the ORR of patients with mRCC with “good” predictive pathologic features based on an “integrated selection” model [ISM (e.g., clear-cell histology subclassification and carbonic anhydrase-9 (CA-9) IHC staining] was significantly higher than the ORR of a historical, unselected population. Archived tumor was collected for pathologic analysis including tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Results: One hundred and twenty eligible patients were enrolled between June 11 and September 7; 70% were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY) intermediate risk, 96% had clear cell RCC, and 99% had prior nephrectomy. The independently assessed ORR was 25% (30/120, 95% CI, 17.5%–33.7%, P = 0.0014; 3 complete responses, 27 partial responses) and was higher than a historical ORR. Thirteen patients (11%) remained progression free at 3 years and the median overall survival was 42.8 months. ORR was not statistically different by ISM classification (“good-risk” 23% vs. “poor-risk” 30%; P = 0.39). ORR was positively associated with tumor PD-L1 expression (P = 0.01) by IHC. Conclusions: In this prospective, biomarker validation study, HD IL2 produced durable remissions and prolonged survival in both “good” and “poor-risk” patients. The proposed ISM was unable to improve the selection criteria. Novel markers (e.g., tumor PD L1 expression) appeared useful, but require independent validation. Clin Cancer Res; 21(3); 561–8. ©2014 AACR.

Purpose Metastatic melanoma, a highly vascularized tumor with strong expression of vascular endothelial growth factor, has an overall poor prognosis. We conducted a placebo-controlled, double-blind phase II study of carboplatin plus paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned in a two-to-one ratio to carboplatin (area under the curve, 5) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m 2 ) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg; CPB) or placebo (CP) administered intravenously once every 3 weeks. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and safety. Results Two hundred fourteen patients (73% with M1c disease) were randomly assigned. With a median follow-up of 13 months, median PFS was 4.2 months for the CP arm (n = 71) and 5.6 months for the CPB arm (n = 143; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .1414). Overall response rates were 16.4% and 25.5%, respectively (P = .1577). With 13-month follow-up, median OS was 8.6 months in the CP arm versus 12.3 months in the CPB arm (HR, 0.67; P = .0366), whereas in an evaluation 4 months later, it was 9.2 versus 12.3 months, respectively (HR, 0.79; P = .1916). In patients with elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (n = 84), median PFS and OS were longer in the CPB arm (PFS: 4.4 v 2.7 months; HR, 0.62; OS: 8.5 v 7.5 months; HR, 0.52). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion The study did not meet the primary objective of statistically significant improvement in PFS with the addition of bevacizumab to carboplatin plus paclitaxel. A larger phase III study will be necessary to determine whether there is benefit to the addition of bevacizumab to carboplatin plus paclitaxel in this disease setting.