Abstract 3462
Background
Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and nivolumab (NIVO) are key components of systemic therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We tested if TKI induction followed by an early switch to NIVO improved outcome in mRCC.
Methods
Key inclusion criteria were measurable advanced or metastatic ccRCC, ECOG PS 0-2, adequate organ function, and PR or SD after sunitinib (50 mg, 4-2 regime) or pazopanib (800 mg OD) for 10-12 weeks. 1:1 randomized to either continue TKI treatment or receive nivolumab 240 or 480 mg IV q2-4wks, until PD or intolerance. Imaging occurred q12wks and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) was assessed monthly x3 and q12wks thereafter (FKSI-15). Primary and key secondary endpoints were survival rate at 2 years and ORR, respectively. The trial stopped prematurely for low accrual after 49 of 244 patients were randomized.
Results
25 and 24 pts. were randomized to receive NIVO or TKI continuation, respectively. Median age was 65 years (range: 35-79), 40 pts. (82%) were male and 2 pts. (4%) had an ECOG PS of 2. MSKCC risk categories: favorable, intermediate, poor were (n; %): 15 (31), 32 (65) and 2 (4). Pazopanib was used in 22 (45). Response to TKI induction was PR in 29 (59) and SD in 20 (41). In the ITT population, best overall response rate measured from start of induction therapy was not significantly different for NIVO vs. TKI (64 vs. 70%, P = 0.76). However, when measured from time of randomization, ORR for NIVO vs. TKI was 16 vs. 48% (P = 0.029). Adverse events (AE) for NIVO vs. TKI occurred in 96% vs. 100% (all grades) and 44% vs. 67% (grades 3-5), respectively. Serious AE (SAE) for NIVO vs. TKI continuation were reported in 10 (40) and 9 (38), respectively.Table:
959P Best overall response to nivolumab or TKI treatment (ITT population)
From start of TKI induction | From randomization | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Category | NIVO | TKI | Total | NIVO | TKI | Total |
n | 25 | 23 | 48 | 25 | 23 | 48 |
CR | -- | 1 (4%) | 1 (2%) | -- | 1 (4%) | 1 (2%) |
PR | 16 (64%) | 15 (65%) | 31 (65%) | 4 (16%) | 10 (43%) | 14 (29) |
SD | 9 (36%) | 7 (30%) | 16 (33%) | 6 (24%) | 7 (30%) | 13 (27%) |
PD | -- | -- | -- | 11 (44%) | 3 (13%) | 14 (29%) |
NE | -- | -- | -- | 4 (16%) | 2 (9%) | 6 (12%) |
Conclusions
TKI induction followed by early switch to NIVO did not improve ORR in patients responsive to TKI. These results do not support the notion that TKI pretreatment sensitizes for nivolumab efficacy. Major limitations of our trial are the premature closure and the limited sample size.
Clinical trial identification
2016-002170-13; NCT02959554.
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
AIO-Studien-gGmbH, Berlin.
Funding
Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Disclosure
V. Grünwald: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (self): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Cerulean; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Art tempi; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: COCS; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: ClinSol; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: EUSAPharm; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MedUpdate; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck Serono; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MedKomAkademie; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: NewConceptOncology; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Johnson & Johnson; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: PharmaMar; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: PeerVoice; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: StreamedUp!; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: ThinkWired!. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
5520 - Patient’s Usability Test results of a CINV Diary Application For Smartphones
Presenter: Paz Fernandez
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2323 - Colorectal Telephone Assessment Pathway (CTAP) - A viable means of shortening time to a definitive diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer (CRC)
Presenter: Harriet Watson
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
6119 - Cancer Nursing and Social Media: Capturing the Zeitgeist
Presenter: Mark Foulkes
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1776 - Examination of mobile applications on breast cancer
Presenter: AYDANUR AYDIN
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4128 - E-health effectiveness to increase patient adherence for immunotherapy; a cost-benefit study.
Presenter: Maria José Dias
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3219 - Experiences of internet-based stepped care among individuals with recently diagnosed cancer and symptoms of anxiety and/or depression
Presenter: Anna Hauffman
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5010 - What do cancer patients know about their immunotherapy treatment?
Presenter: Mónica Arellano
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4503 - Prospective Comparison of Travel Burden, Cost and Time to Obtain Tumor Board Treatment Plan Through In-Person Visits vs. an AI Enabled Health Technology (N=1803)
Presenter: Rajendra Badwe
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4123 - Cancer care through the fire and flames: 3-year experience in the utilisation of electronic consultation and referral system at the Red Zone in Southern Thailand
Presenter: Nanthiya Rattanakhot
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2087 - The effect of e-mobile education on the quality of life in women with breast cancer
Presenter: Derya ÇInar
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract