Powles, Thomas

Objective To evaluate patient‐reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression‐free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients and methods Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks ( n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks ( n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6‐week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2‐point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. Results Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue‐related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22–0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12–0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22–0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Conclusion PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

4515 Background: The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved PFS with atezo + bev vs sun in patients (pts) whose tumors were PD-L1+ and corroborated the activity of atezo monotherapy in previously untreated mRCC. This study offers an opportunity to evaluate PROs with immunotherapy and VEGF-directed therapy alone and in combination. Methods: Pts randomized to atezo 1200 mg IV q3w alone or with bev 15 mg/kg IV q3w, or sun 50 mg po qd for 4 wk on/2 wk off completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) q3w of each 6-wk cycle until progression (RECIST 1.1). Time to deterioration (TTD; first ≥ 2-point score increase over baseline [BL]) and change from BL (effect size [ES] ≥ 0.2 suggests a clinically important difference vs sun) in MDASI symptom severity and interference and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores are reported for all-comers. Results: Completion rates were > 90% at BL and ≥ 80% at most visits across arms. BL PRO scores indicating mild symptoms and interference were similar across arms. Delayed TTD of symptom severity and interference with daily life was seen with atezo vs sun and atezo + bev vs sun and was longest with atezo alone (Table). Pts reported milder symptoms and less interference during the first 6 cycles with atezo vs sun: ES mean (range) was 0.36 (0.07-0.68) for core symptom severity and 0.36 (0.04-0.83) for symptom interference. The 5 worst pt-reported symptoms during tx (dry mouth, fatigue, rash, drowsiness, lack of appetite) were all in the sun arm; all 16 symptoms measured were milder with atezo vs sun. Conclusions: PROs suggest that atezo alone or with bev maintained daily function with minimal symptom interference vs sun. Clinical activity, safety and PRO data for atezo support its investigation in adjuvant tx of high-risk RCC pts (IMmotion010; NCT03024996). Clinical trial information: NCT01984242. [Table: see text]

522 Background: In the METEOR study (NCT01865747), cabo demonstrated improved progression-free survival (median 7.4 vs. 3.8 mo; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45–0.74; p<0.0001), OS (median 21.4 vs. 16.5 mo; HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53-0.83, p=0.0003), and objective response rate (17% vs. 3%; p<0.0001) compared with eve in patients (pts) with advanced RCC who had received prior VEGFR TKI therapy (Choueiri NEJM 2015, Lancet Oncol 2016). Here we evaluate the impact of changes in target lesion size from baseline on OS. Methods: 658 pts were randomized 1:1 to receive cabo (60 mg qd) or eve (10 mg qd). Stratification factors were MSKCC risk group and number of prior VEGFR TKIs. Target lesion size was assessed per independent radiology review by CT/MRI scans at baseline, every 8 weeks for the first 12 months, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Three subgroups were defined by best change in target lesion size from baseline: decrease ≥30%, decrease <30%, and any increase. Results: The rate of target lesion regression was higher in the cabo arm (75%) compared with the eve arm (48%). A higher fraction of pts had a decrease ≥30% in target lesion size in the cabo arm, while a higher fraction of pts had an increase in target lesion size in the eve arm (Table). Medians for OS with cabo were not estimable (NE) (95% CI, NE‒NE), 20.8 mo (95% CI, 18.1‒NE), and 11.1 mo (95% CI, 7.6‒15.2) for the ≥30% decrease, <30% decrease, and any increase subgroups, respectively. Medians for OS with eve were NE (95% CI, 19.3‒NE), 18.0 mo (95% CI, 15.9‒20.4), and 14.0 mo (95% CI, 10.5‒16.3) for the ≥30% decrease, <30% decrease, and any increase subgroups, respectively. Median duration of follow-up for OS was 18.7 mo (IQR 16.1–21.1) for cabo and 18.8 mo (16.0–21.2) for eve. A higher proportion of pts received subsequent anticancer therapy in the any increase subgroup compared with the other subgroups. Conclusions: Cabo demonstrated a higher rate of tumor target lesion regression than eve, and greater target lesion regression was associated with improved OS in pts with advanced RCC. Clinical trial information: NCT01865747. [Table: see text]

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]

Abstract Purpose: The interaction of programmed death-1 ligand (PD-L1) with its receptor (PD-1) on T cells inactivates antitumor immune responses. PD-L1 expression has been associated with poor outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) but has not been investigated in advanced RCC patients receiving VEGF-targeted therapy. Experimental Design: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens were collected at baseline from patients in the COMPARZ trial. Tumor cell PD-L1 expression by IHC was evaluated using H-score (HS). Dual PD-L1/CD68 staining was used to differentiate PD-L1 tumor expression from tumor-associated macrophages. Intratumor CD8-positive T cells were quantified morphometrically. Associations between biomarkers and survival were investigated using the log-rank test. Results: HS data were available from 453 of 1,110 patients. Sixty-four percent of patients had negative PD-L1 expression (HS = 0). Patients with HS &gt; 55 (n = 59, 13%) had significantly shorter overall survival (OS) than those with HS ≤ 55 in both pazopanib and sunitinib arms (median 15.1 vs. 35.6 and 15.3 vs. 27.8 months, respectively, P = 0.03). In both arms, median OS was shortest in patients with HS &gt; 55 and intratumor CD8-positive T-cell counts &gt; 300 (9.6 and 11.9 months with pazopanib and sunitinib, respectively). Median OS in patients with HS ≤ 55 and CD8-positive T-cell counts ≤ 300 was 36.8 and 28.0 months with pazopanib and sunitinib, respectively. Progression-free survival results were similar to OS results. Conclusions: Increased tumor cell PD-L1, or PD-L1 plus tumor CD8-positive T-cell counts, were associated with shorter survival in patients with metastatic RCC receiving VEGF-targeted agents. These findings may have implications for future design of randomized clinical trials in advanced RCC. Clin Cancer Res; 21(5); 1071–7. ©2014 AACR.