Zakharia, Yousef

TPS739 Background: The landscape for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has changed dramatically over the past 7 years with the approvals of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune-oncology (IO) agents alone or in combination for untreated mRCC. However, multiple knowledge gaps remain. While active surveillance remains an option for selected pts, prospective evidence on selection of and outcomes for pts is limited. Recent phase III trials all used a common comparator, sunitinib, so no comparative effectiveness data on the new IO-based regimens exists. There are also no routinely used predictive biomarkers in mRCC pt management. Therefore, a better understanding of the biologic determinants associated with cancer heterogeneity and clinical outcomes through blood, tumor, and radiographic based assessments is needed. Importantly, longitudinal changes in health-related quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden of patients with mRCC initiated on new IO–based regimens outside of an interventional clinical trial are poorly understood. Pt reported outcomes (PRO) are rarely captured in a systematic manner. Addressing the evidence gap for how real world pts symptomatically change with treatment combinations and sequences over time is a pressing unmet need. Methods: This is a prospective, observational cohort, phase IV study of 800 mRCC pts in the US. Pts must: be age ≥19 at informed consent; have a diagnosis of mRCC (any histology) with no prior systemic therapy for mRCC (surgery and radiation therapy, prior neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy for non-mRCC, and pts currently not on systemic therapy and being observed are all permitted); and be able to comply with completion of PROs. Those being treated for active malignancies other than mRCC or not intending to undergo follow up care at a study site within PCORnet are excluded. Pts will undergo consent and baseline assessments, including research blood collection and processing, by the study site team. A novel aspect of this study is the use of PCORnet and Medicare data to minimize data collection burden on sites. PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, is a network of networks that curates EHR data from multiple health systems using a common data model. This allows subsequent follow up to be centrally coordinated by the coordinating center. PRO will be collected at baseline (pre-treatment), every 3 mos for 2 yrs, and then every 6 mos until end of follow up (minimum 18 mos follow-up; maximum 36 mos follow-up). The primary objective is to determine distinct patterns of change in QOL and symptom burden of mRCC pts receiving therapy. Secondary objectives include quantifying the time to treatment discontinuation of pts, identifying patterns of clinical management in the real world setting of mRCC pts on various treatment regimens, and evaluating overall survival of mRCC pts. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04919122 Clinical trial information: NCT04919122 .

694 Background: The treatment landscape of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rapidly evolving. Recent trials have demonstrated contrasting efficacy with adjuvant immunotherapy. Therefore, we sought to assess the mixed treatment comparisons among different adjuvant treatment options using updated data from trials and quantified the absolute effect with these treatments stratified by risk categories. Methods: This living network meta-analysis was conducted using the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. We used stratified baseline risks of disease progression from observational data and at 5, 10, 15 years from the Leibovich risk stratification system (based on risk scores ranging from 0 to ≥15). Corresponding intervention risks were then approximated using relative effect estimates (from NMA) and baseline risks. The difference between CIRs and baseline risks were calculated to present absolute risk differences in each risk category. Results: This NMA included eight RCTs with 8480 participants and seven unique treatment options. Pembrolizumab (pembro; rank 1) was associated with improved disease-free survival (DFS) when compared to atezolizumab (atezo; rank 6; hazard ratio: 0.68; 0.49;0.93), and nivolumab-ipilimumab (nivoipi; rank 5; 0.68; 0.48-0.97). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between pembro and atezo for overall survival (0.53; 0.28-1.01). Survival data for nivoIpi was not reported. No new statistically significant differences were observed since last update. The absolute benefit of atezo and nivoipi was minimal with higher T and N patients (Table). The results were similar with increasing Leibovich risk scores. Conclusions: Current evidence favors the use of a risk adapted approach when offering adjuvant immunotherapy. Adjuvant pembrolizumab remains a preferred treatment in patients with RCC who underwent nephrectomy. [Table: see text]

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract Background: Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) is a membrane-bound protease that is highly expressed on the surface of cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) present in the tumor microenvironment of most epithelial cancers. With limited expression observed in normal tissues, FAP is a promising therapeutic and imaging target for delivery of radionuclides to cancer tissues. FAP-2286, a low-molecular-weight cyclic peptide that potently and selectively binds to FAP, is attached to a linker and tetraazacyclododecane tetraacetic acid (DOTA) cage that can be used to conjugate radionuclides such as lutetium-177 (177Lu) or gallium-68 (68Ga) for therapeutic or imaging applications, respectively. 177Lu-FAP-2286 has demonstrated antitumor activity in preclinical studies. The LuMIERE study (NCT04939610) is the first phase 1/2 clinical trial of an FAP-targeted radionuclide therapy evaluating 177Lu-FAP-2286 in patients with FAP-expressing solid tumors that are identified with the imaging agent 68Ga-FAP-2286. Methods: Eligible adult patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors and measurable disease (per RECIST v1.1) will be selected for treatment with 177Lu-FAP-2286 on the basis of FAP expression using 68Ga-FAP-2286. In phase 1, tumors must be refractory to or have progressed following prior treatment, with no satisfactory alternative treatment options. Phase 1 includes dose escalation of 177Lu-FAP-2286, starting at 3.7 GBq to a maximum of 9.25 GBq. Patients may receive up to 6 cycles of 177Lu-FAP-2286 administered on day 1 of each 6-week cycle. Three to 12 patients will be treated at each dose level in the dose-escalation portion. Tolerability will be assessed across multiple doses for determination of a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), which may be further evaluated in a phase 1 dose-expansion portion. FDG-PET/CT scans will be collected prior to treatment, and patients will be imaged by planar and SPECT/CT scans at multiple time points to calculate organ and tumor dosimetry to determine absorbed radiation dose. Disease status will be assessed per RECIST v1.1 every 6 weeks. The primary objective of phase 1 is to evaluate the safety of 177Lu-FAP-2286 and determine the RP2D. Secondary objectives include the assessment of radiation dosimetry, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of 177Lu-FAP-2286 and the evaluation of safety and tumor uptake of 68Ga-FAP-2286. Phase 2 will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and dosimetry of 177Lu-FAP-2286 in patients with select FAP-expressing solid tumors. Citation Format: Jonathan McConathy, Mallika Dhawan, Ajit H. Goenka, Emerson A. Lim, Yusuf Menda, Beth Chasen, Moh'd Khushman, Akiva Mintz, Yousef Zakharia, John J. Sunderland, Owen Bowles, Jim Xiao, Andrew D. Simmons, Kenton Wride, Aaron Enke, Thomas A. Hope. LuMIERE: A phase 1/2 study investigating safety, pharmacokinetics, dosimetry, and preliminary antitumor activity of 177Lu-FAP-2286 in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT251.

9573 Background: Mucosal melanoma is a rare, highly aggressive form of melanoma with extremely high recurrence rates, despite definitive surgical resection. Median RFS has been reported to be 5.4m, with RFS rates at 1 and 2 years of 10%, and 0%, respectively (Lian B, Si L, Cui C, et al. Phase II Randomized Trial Comparing High-Dose IFN-α2b with Temozolomide Plus Cisplatin as Systemic Adjuvant Therapy for Resected Mucosal Melanoma. Clinical Cancer Research 2013, 19(16):4488-4498). Currently there is no consensus on recommendations for adjuvant therapy. Data on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) adjuvantly is lacking. Methods: We performed a single arm, multicenter clinical trial using “flip dose” ipilimumab (1mg/kg q3w x4 cycles),and nivolumab (3 mg.kg q3w x4 cycles), then Nivolumab 480 mg q4w x 11 cycles to complete a year of adjuvant therapy. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS), and the study had 85% power to detect an improvement in RFS between 5.5 and 9.5 months using a one-sided log rank test. Participants must have had R0/R1 resection <90 days prior to registration, and no prior systemic therapy (adjuvant radiation allowed), ECOG 0/1, no uncontrolled significant autoimmune disease or other invasive cancer. Patients were recruited through the Midwest Melanoma Partnership/Hoosier Oncology Network. Results: From 9/17 to 8/21, 44 patients were approached at 6 centers. Of these 9 were ineligible, and 35 were enrolled. Of these, 29 (83%) had R0 resections, and 7 (20%) had adjuvant radiation prior to enrollment. As of Dec 2021, 31 patients have completed the treatment phase. Of the 35 patients treated on study, 20 patients have recurred (7 local, 5 distant, 3 regional, 5 sites unconfirmed), 6 stopped therapy due to adverse effects, and 8 have died. The mean age of patients was 65.8 years and 21 (60.0%) were female. The primary site of disease was vulvovaginal N=12 (32.4%) patients, sinonasal N= 11 (29.7%), anorectal N= 9 (24.3%) and other site N= 5 (13.5%). Adjuvant radiation had been given in 7 pts. Driver mutations were rare, with only 3 (8.6%) patients having a KIT mutation, and one patient (2.9%) each having a NRAS or BRAF mutation. RFS rates at 1 and 2 years were 50% (95% CI 31-66%) and 37% (95% CI 19-55%), with OS rates at 1 and 2 years of 87% (95% CI 68-95%) and 68% (95% CI 46-83%). Median RFS was 10.3 m (95% CI5.7-25.8). Most common grade 3 adverse events were diarrhea (14%), hypertension (14%), hyponatremia (11%), with no grade 4/5 toxicities. Conclusions: Flip dose ipilimumab and nivolumab after resection is associated with outcomes improved over previously reported outcomes in the absence of therapy. Long term follow up is ongoing as are subgroup analyses and correlative studies. Clinical trial information: NCT03241186.

This study was carried out to quantitate the expression levels of microRNA-17, -19a, -34a, -155, and -210 (miRs) expressed in nine clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and one chromophobe renal cell carcinoma cell line with and without sarcomatoid differentiation, and in six primary kidney tumors with matching normal kidney tissues. The data in the five non-sarcomatoid ccRCC cell lines—RC2, CAKI-1, 786-0, RCC4, and RCC4/VHL—and in the four ccRCC with sarcomatoid differentiation—RCJ41T1, RCJ41T2, RCJ41M, and UOK-127—indicated that miR-17 and -19a were expressed at lower levels relative to miR-34a, -155, and -210. Compared with RPTEC normal epithelial cells, miR-34a, miR-155, and miR-210 were expressed at higher levels, independent of the sarcomatoid differentiation status and hypoxia-inducible factors 1α and 2α (HIFs) isoform expression. In the one chromophobe renal cell carcinoma cell line, namely, UOK-276 with sarcomatoid differentiation, and expressing tumor suppressor gene TP53, miR-34a, which is a tumor suppressor gene, was expressed at higher levels than miR-210, -155, -17, and -19a. The pilot results generated in six tumor biopsies with matching normal kidney tissues indicated that while the expression of miR-17 and -19a were similar to the normal tissue expression profile, miR-210, -155, -and 34a were expressed at a higher level. To confirm that differences in the expression levels of the five miRs in the six tumor biopsies were statistically significant, the acquisition of a larger sample size is required. Data previously generated in ccRCC cell lines demonstrating that miR-210, miR-155, and HIFs are druggable targets using a defined dose and schedule of selenium-containing molecules support the concept that simultaneous and concurrent downregulation of miR-210, miR-155, and HIFs, which regulate target genes associated with increased tumor angiogenesis and drug resistance, may offer the potential for the development of a novel mechanism-based strategy for the treatment of patients with advanced ccRCC.

Background The indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) pathway is a key counter-regulatory mechanism that, in cancer, is exploited by tumors to evade antitumor immunity. Indoximod is a small-molecule IDO pathway inhibitor that reverses the immunosuppressive effects of low tryptophan (Trp) and high kynurenine (Kyn) that result from IDO activity. In this study, indoximod was used in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) pembrolizumab for the treatment for advanced melanoma. Methods Patients with advanced melanoma were enrolled in a single-arm phase II clinical trial evaluating the addition of indoximod to standard of care CPI approved for melanoma. Investigators administered their choice of CPI including pembrolizumab (P), nivolumab (N), or ipilimumab (I). Indoximod was administered continuously (1200 mg orally two times per day), with concurrent CPI dosed per US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved label. Results Between July 2014 and July 2017, 131 patients were enrolled. (P) was used more frequently (n=114, 87%) per investigator’s choice. The efficacy evaluable population consisted of 89 patients from the phase II cohort with non-ocular melanoma who received indoximod combined with (P). The objective response rate (ORR) for the evaluable population was 51% with confirmed complete response of 20% and disease control rate of 70%. Median progression-free survival was 12.4 months (95% CI 6.4 to 24.9). The ORR for Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive patients was 70% compared with 46% for PD-L1-negative patients. The combination was well tolerated, and side effects were similar to what was expected from single agent (P). Conclusion In this study, the combination of indoximod and (P) was well tolerated and showed antitumor efficacy that is worth further evaluation in selected patients with advanced melanoma.

Abstract Lessons Learned Background Endoglin is an angiogenic receptor expressed on proliferating tumor vessels and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stem cells that is implicated as a mechanism of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors. This study evaluated an antiendoglin monoclonal antibody (carotuximab, TRC105) combined with axitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors. Methods TRAXAR was a multicenter, international randomized 1:1 (stratified by ECOG, 0 vs. 1), phase II study of carotuximab combined with axitinib versus axitinib alone in mccRCC patients who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent central review (ICR) per RECIST 1.1 Results A total of 150 patients were randomized. The combination therapy resulted in shorter median PFS by RECIST 1.1 than axitinib monotherapy (6.7 vs. 11.4 months). The combination was tolerated similarly to axitinib monotherapy, and there were no treatment related deaths. Exploratory evaluation of pretreatment circulating biomarkers suggested the combination might benefit patients who have low baseline VEGF levels. Conclusion The combination of carotuximab with axitinib did not demonstrate additional efficacy over single agent axitinib in patients with mccRCC who progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitor treatment.

BackgroundSystemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow‐growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient‐related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2‐sample rank‐sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan‐Meier survival curves were used to assess survival.ResultsOf 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25‐44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST.ConclusionsAS occurs frequently (32%) in real‐world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.