Appleman, Leonard J.

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.

5565 Background: mCRPC patients (pts) tend to have a poor prognosis and limited treatment (tx) options, especially those with concomitant bone metastases (mets). We explored the ability of combination tx with atezo (anti–PD-L1) and r-223 (α-particle emitter) to stimulate anti-tumor immunity in mCRPC pts. Methods: This Phase Ib study evaluated the safety and tolerability of atezo + r-223 in pts with mCRPC and multiple bone mets, visceral mets and/or lymphadenopathy who progressed after androgen pathway inhibitor tx. The initial cohort phase evaluated the safety and tolerability of a concurrent dosing schedule (CDS), in which atezo and r-223 were administered on the same day. Following assessment of CDS, pts were randomized 1:1:1 to CDS or 1 of 2 staggered dosing schedules (atezo or r-223 introduced a full cycle before the other). This was followed by an expansion of enrollment (randomized 1:1:1). Pts got atezo 840 mg IV q2w and r-223 at 55 kBq/kg IV 6 times at 4-wk intervals until unacceptable toxicity or loss of clinical benefit. Exploratory measures of efficacy included investigator-assessed ORR (RECIST 1.1), PSA response rate, time to PSA progression, radiographic PFS (rPFS; PCWG2 criteria) and OS. Biopsy samples were collected at baseline and prior to cycle 2 to evaluate changes in the tumor microenvironment during tx. Results: As of Oct 4, 2019, 45 pts were enrolled and 44 had evaluable data. Baseline characteristics were generally similar across groups. All 44 evaluable pts had ≥ 1 all-cause AE; 23 (52.3%) had Gr 3-4 AE. Eight pts (18.2%) had Gr 5 AE as per protocol reporting of deaths; 4 (9.1%) were from disease progression. Median follow-up was 13.9 mo (range, 1.7–34.2). Confirmed ORR was 6.8% (95% CI: 1.43, 18.66). Confirmed PSA response rate was 4.5% and median time to PSA progression was 3.0 mo (95% CI: 2.8, 3.3). Median rPFS was 3.0 mo (95% CI: 2.8, 4.6) and median OS was 16.3 mo (95% CI: 10.9, 22.3). Changes in PD-L1 and CD8 IHC were consistent with the known mechanism of action of atezo, as were changes in alkaline phosphatase with radium. Conclusions: No dose-limiting toxicities, safety signals, or changes in serum biomarkers were observed beyond the known safety profiles of atezo and r-223. This Phase 1b study did not seem to show clinical benefit from combination tx. Ongoing subgroup and biomarker analyses may provide additional insights. Studies of PD-1/PD-L1 targeted therapies in combination with tumor-directed radiation in molecularly selected mCRPC pts are planned or underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02814669 .

4521 Background: Expression of PDL1 by RCC has been associated with aggressive histology and poor survival. Tissue obtained from the patients enrolled in the IL-2 Select Trial, a prospective, single arm, multicenter CWG study, was analyzed by IHC to determine if PDL1or PDL3 expression predicted for response to initial or subsequent therapy. Methods: Paraffin embedded tumor tissue was stained for PDL1 and PDL3 expression, and results were correlated with RECIST defined response to IL2 treatment. Tumor tissue was considered positive for PDL1 if >5% of the tumor membranes stained for the marker. A cutoff of 10% was used for PDL3. Duration of subsequent VEGFR/mTOR inhibitor therapy was also correlated with tissue PDL1/3 expression. Results: 120 eligible pts were enrolled; 115 had clear cell histology. The overall response rate (ORR) to IL2 was 25% (30/120) with a median OS of 40.6 months. 113 tumors were stained. 18 (16%) were PDL1+. ORR was 19% and 50% in the patients PDL1- and PDL1+ tumors, respectively (p=0.012). 85 (75%) tumors were PDL3+. ORR was 10.7% and 29.4% in the PDL3- and PDL3+ tumors, respectively (p=0.075). In the 17 patients who were positive for both PDL1 and PDL3, ORR was 52.9%. In the 27 pts who were negative for both PDL1 and PDL3, ORR was 11.1%. 69 patients received at least 1 dose of a VEGFR TKI as next therapy following IL2 treatment. 66 tumors were stained. Pts who were PDL1+/PDL3+ had a shorter duration on VEGFR TKI therapy compared to pts who were PDL1-/PDL3- (see Table). Conclusions: This small, retrospective analysis suggests that PDL1 and PDL3 tissue expression may predict for better response to IL2. PDL1 expression has been suggested as a possible predictor of response to anti-PD1 therapy. The current data suggests that its expression may predict for benefit to other immune therapies. PDL3 (+/- PDL1) expression appears to correlate to less benefit from subsequent VEGFR TKI therapy. Funded by NCI SPORE Grant # 5 P50 CA101942-08. [Table: see text]

AbstractBackgroundProstate‐specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a well‐established therapeutic and diagnostic target overexpressed in both primary and metastatic prostate cancers. PSMA antibody‐drug conjugate (PSMA ADC) is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 anti‐PSMA monoclonal antibody conjugated to monomethylauristatin E, which binds to PSMA‐positive cells and induces cytotoxicity. In a phase 1 study, PSMA ADC was well tolerated and demonstrated activity as measured by reductions in serum prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). To further assess PSMA ADC, we conducted a phase 2 trial in metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) subjects who progressed following abiraterone/enzalutamide (abi/enz) therapy.MethodsA total of 119 (84 chemotherapy‐experienced and 35 chemotherapy‐naïve) subjects were administered PSMA ADC 2.5 or 2.3 mg/kg IV q3w for up to eight cycles. Antitumor activity (best percentage declines in PSA and CTCs from baseline and tumor responses through radiological imaging), exploratory biomarkers, and safety (monitoring of adverse events [AEs], clinical laboratory tests, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status) were assessed.ResultsPSA declines ≥50% occurred in 14% of all treated (n = 113) and 21% of chemotherapy‐naïve subjects (n = 34). CTC declines ≥50% were seen in 78% of all treated (n = 77; number of subjects with ≥5 CTCs at baseline and a posttreatment result) and 89% of chemotherapy‐naïve subjects (n = 19); 47% of all treated and 53% of chemotherapy‐naïve subjects had a transition from ≥5 to less than 5 CTCs/7.5 mL blood at some point during the study. PSA and CTC reductions were associated with high PSMA expression (CTCs or tumor tissue) and low neuroendocrine serum markers. In the chemotherapy‐experienced group, the best overall radiologic response to PSMA ADC treatment was stable disease in 51 (60.7%) subjects; 5.7% of subjects in the chemotherapy‐naïve group had partial responses. The most common treatment‐related AEs ≥Common Terminology Criteria for AE (CTCAE) grade 3 were neutropenia, fatigue, electrolyte imbalance, anemia, and neuropathy. The most common serious AEs were dehydration, hyponatremia, febrile neutropenia, and constipation. Two subjects who received 2.5 mg/kg died of sepsis.ConclusionsPSMA ADC demonstrated some activity with respect to PSA declines, CTC conversions/reductions, and radiologic assessments in abi/enz treated mCRPC subjects. Clinically significant treatment‐related AEs included neutropenia and neuropathy.

4563 Background: We previously reported no difference in favorable response rate (FRR) or PFS for TIP vs BEP. Here we present results of a pre-planned analysis of biomarkers of outcome. Methods: HCG and AFP were drawn on days 1 and 15 of each cycle and rates of decline classified as satisfactory [S] or unsatisfactory [US] by MSK (Motzer JCO 2007) and GETUG (Fizazi Lancet Oncol 2014) methods. IHC for ERCC1, RAD51, PARP1, HER-2, and p-AKT was performed on pre-treatment tumor samples. An H-score (0 – 300) was calculated for each stain (H = stain intensity [0 – 3] x % positive cells [0-100]). H-score and marker decline category were correlated with FRR (PR + CR) and PFS. Patients (pts) who received disease-stabilizing chemotherapy were excluded from marker analyses. Results: Of 91 pts, 80 did not receive disease-stabilizing treatment with 79 having sufficient marker values for analysis by the MSK method and 75 by GETUG. By MSK, 49 had S decline vs 30 US; by GETUG, 34 S vs 41 US. FRR and PFS were improved for pts with S vs US decline by both methods and remained significant by the MSK method when stratified by IGCCCG group (Table). IHC (n=77) quality was adequate in 71 to 73 pts (varied by stain) and was positive (H >0) for PARP in 68/73, ERCC1 in 54/71, RAD51 in 54/73, p-AKT in 5/72, and HER2 in 4/72. Only PARP1 was associated with outcome with worse PFS for the lowest expression tertile (H < 180; p=0.013). Conclusions: PARP1 expression and tumor marker decline rates, particularly by MSK method, were significantly associated with outcome to initial chemotherapy in int/poor risk GCT. Future trials incorporating marker decline into treatment allocation and validating the prognostic effect of PARP1 expression are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01873326. [Table: see text]

4502 Background: Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are at high risk of recurrence, but no systemic therapy has been shown to benefit this population. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of VEGFR and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with measurable RCC metastatic disease. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test the hypothesis that pazopanib would improve disease-free survival in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy Methods: Patients with NED following metastasectomy were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib starting at 800 mg daily vs. placebo for 52 weeks. Patients were stratified by 1 vs. > 1 site of resected disease, and by disease-free interval ≤ vs. > 1 year. Clinical assessment for toxicity and patient-reported outcomes were performed every 4 weeks, and restaging scans every 12 weeks. The study was designed to observe a 42% improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) from 25% to 45% at 3 years. Results: From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events had been observed (92% information). The median follow-up from randomization was 30 months (range 0.4 – 66.5 months). The study did not meet the primary endpoint: hazard ratio (95% CI) for DFS was 0.85 (0.55, 1.31) p= 0.47 in favor of pazopanib. At the time of unblinding, 22/129 (17%) of subjects had died. The HR for overall survival (OS) was 2.65 (1.02, 6.9) in favor of placebo ( p= 0.05). Patient-reported outcomes and laboratory correlates will be reported separately. Conclusions: 52 weeks of pazopanib did not improve DFS compared to blinded placebo in patients with mRCC who were NED after metastasectomy. There was a trend toward worse overall survival with pazopanib. Clinical trial information: NCT01575548.