Citations

11007 Background: Patients (pts) with metastatic sarcoma (SAR) have limited options. Nivolumab(N), a fully human anti-PD-1 mAb and ipilimumab (I), a humanized anti-CTLA-4 mAb, have favorable safety & efficacy in other tumors. Pembrolizumab demonstrated a response rate (RR) of 12% in SAR pts. We evaluated N, independently from N+I, in SAR pts. Methods: This open-label multi-center phase II study enrolled pts failing prior regimens. Randomized (non-comparative) pts received either N3 [N (3 mg/kg q2W)] or N3+I1 [N(3 mg/kg Q3W x4, then Q2W) & [I(1 mg/kg q3W x4)]. Treatment continued beyond progressive disease (PD) in 1st12 weeks. 5 confirmed responses in 38 evaluable pts yielded 90% power (0.05 1-sided alpha) to detect a 20% (vs 5%) confirmed RR. Other endpoints: adverse events (AEs), progression-free, overall survival (PFS, OS), and correlative studies including PD-L1 expression by IHC, mutational burden/neoantigen analysis, TCR clonality and TIL characterization. Results: 85 pts (43 - N3; 42 - N3+I1) were enrolled [mean age 54 yrs (21–81), 52% female). No significant differences in histological subtypes across cohorts: 36% LMS, 4% LPS, 10% UPS/MFH, 6% synovial, 5% bone, 5% Ewing’s, and 34% other. Pts were refractory to 1(20%), 2(22%), and ≥3 (58%) regimens. Grade 3-4 treatment related adverse events (TRAE) occurred in 7% (N3) and 14% (N3+I1) and 0 Gr 5 TRAEs. 8% of pts stopped due to AEs (2% N3, 14% N3+I1). 2/3 confirmed responses on N3, with 2 ongoing (range 1.1-3.2 months). 6/7 confirmed responses (2 complete) on N3+N1, with 5 ongoing (range 6-13 months). Responses occurred in 7 histologies. See Table for pt outcomes. Conclusions: N + I showed acceptable safety and encouraging antitumor activity with most responses ongoing across multiple SAR histologies, passing efficacy criteria. There was minimal activity observed with N alone. Increased TRAEs were observed in N3+I1. Correlative analyses ongoing. NCT02500797. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, Conquer Cancer Foundation, BMS. Clinical trial information: NCT02500797. [Table: see text]

4505 Background: While inhibiting VEGF improves outcomes in mRCC pts, most develop resistance, often within a year. Here, we report results from a Ph II study of atezo (anti–PD-L1) and bev (anti-VEGF) vs and following atezo or sun (TKI) in mRCC pts. Methods: Pts with untreated mRCC were enrolled in the hypothesis generating IMmotion150 study (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. After progression on atezo or sun, crossover to atezo + bev was allowed. PD-L1 status was scored on tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC, SP142 IHC assay). The primary analysis was modified prior to final analysis to reflect the coprimary endpoints of IRF-assessed PFS (RECIST v1.1) in ITT pts and pts with PD-L1 expression on ≥ 1% of IC (PD-L1+). Results: 54% of pts were PD-L1+. In PD-L1+ pts 1L treatment resulted in a PFS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64 for atezo + bev vs sun (table). After 1L treatment, 78% of sun and 60% of atezo pts who progressed subsequently received atezo + bev and achieved ORRs of 28% and 24%, respectively (table). Safety was comparable to the known individual profiles of atezo and bev. Additional clinical, safety and biomarker data will be presented. Conclusions: Atezo + bev resulted in encouraging antitumor activity in 1L pts with PD-L1+ mRCC. Preliminary activity in the 2L setting was demonstrated in pts who crossed over to atezo + bev, regardless of prior therapy. 1L atezo + bev vs sun is being evaluated in the ongoing Ph III study IMmotion151 (NCT02420821). Clinical trial information: NCT01984242. [Table: see text]

Background: The clinical benefit of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in patients with cryptogenic stroke (CS) for recurrent stroke prevention has been a subject of extensive debate. Prior clinical trials failed to show superiority of PFO closure versus medical therapy. Meta-analyses suggested a possible benefit of PFO closure in select patients. Objective: The objective of this study was to critically assess current evidence regarding the efficacy of PFO closure compared with medical therapy for recurrent stroke prevention in patients with CS. Methods: The objective was addressed through the development of a structured critically appraised topic. This included a clinical scenario with a clinical question, literature search strategy, critical appraisal, results, evidence summary, commentary, and bottom line conclusions. Participants included consultant and resident neurologists, medical librarian, and vascular neurology and interventional cardiology content experts. Results: A randomized, controlled trial was selected for critical appraisal. This trial compared the efficacy of PFO closure and medical therapy in recurrent stroke prevention. A total of 663 patients who had a recent CS attributed to PFO, with a large interatrial shunt or with an associated atrial septal aneurysm were included. No stroke occurred among the 238 patients in the PFO closure group, whereas 14 of the 235 patients in the antiplatelet therapy group had recurrent strokes. Conclusions: Among patients who had a recent CS attributed to PFO with a large interatrial shunt or with an associated atrial septal aneurysm, the rate of stroke recurrence was lower among those assigned to PFO closure combined with antiplatelet therapy than among those assigned to antiplatelet therapy alone.