immunotherapeutics in advanced urothelial cancergpgu.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/08...oct 08,...
TRANSCRIPT
Immunotherapy In Advanced Urothelial Cancer
Robert Dreicer, M.D., M.S., MACP, FASCOHead, Medical Oncology Section
Deputy Director University of Virginia Cancer CenterAssociate Director for Clinical Research
Co-Director Paul Mellon Urologic Oncology CenterProfessor of Medicine and Urology
University of Virginia School of Medicine
Disclosures
• Consultant: Orion, Astra Zeneca, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Janssen, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono/Pfizer
• Research Funding: Genentech, Asana, Lilly, Bayer
Management Advanced Urothelial Cancer: Issues/Challenges
• A nasty aggressive epithelial cancer
• “Moderately” chemotherapy responsive, but few CR’s
• Impacts an “older” patient population
• Relatively high rate of patients with compromised performance status and/or renal function : The unfit patient
State of the Art Therapy in Advanced Urothelial Cancer Circa Spring 2016
1Loehrer JCO 1992; 2Von der Maase JCO 2000; 3 Bellmunt et al JCO 20124De Santis ASCO 2010; 5Linardou Urology 2004 6Nogué-Aliguer Cancer 2003; 7Rosenberg et al Lancet 2016
Setting Regimen Response RateMedian Survival
1st line CisplatinEligible
MVAC1
Gemcitabine +Cisplatin2
PGC3
40-50%12-15 months
Cisplatin Ineligible
Gemcitabine +Carboplatin4-6 36-56% 7-9 months
2nd line Single Agent Chemotherapy
~10% 5-8 months
Management of Metastatic Urothelial Cancer: Summary of Current Evidence
• Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy provides the potential to cure in the range of 5-15%, primarily in good PS pts with low volume nodal disease
• Non-cisplatin based chemotherapy appears to be primarily palliative, may impact slightly on PFS
• A small group of highly selected patients may benefit from an integrated chemotherapy/surgical approach
Second Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Urothelial Cancer
• To date no level 1 evidence supporting improvement in survival from chemotherapy
• There is no current evidence for the superiority of salvage combination chemotherapy compared to monotherapy, or precise delineation of non-cross resistant regimens
PD-L1 Expression in Metastatic Bladder Cancer
Powles T et al. Nature. 2014;515:558-562.
IHC Score(N = 205)
Tumor-Infiltrating Immune Cells, n (%)
Tumor Cells, n (%)
IHC 3 18 (9) 14 (7)
IHC 2 37 (18) 8 (4)
IHC 1 89 (43) 37 (18)
IHC 0 61 (30) 146 (71)
PD-L1 Positivity in UBC Tumors by IHC
Tumor Response With Atezolizumab Anti–PD-L1 Therapy in Metastatic Bladder Cancer
Powles T et al. Nature. 2014;515:558-562.
a Patients with CRs who had ≤100% reduction of target lesions due to lymph node target lesions; all lymph nodes returned to normal size per RECIST v1.1.
Max
imu
m S
LD R
ed
uct
ion
Fro
m B
ase
line,
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
IHC (IC) 0IHC (IC) 1IHC (IC) 2IHC (IC) 3IHC (IC) Unknown
a
a
Expression characteristics of bladder cancer. Integrated analysis of mRNA, miRNA and protein data led to identification of distinct subsets of urothelial carcinoma
MARCH 2014 | VOL 507 | NATURE | 315
IMvigor 210: Phase 2 Atezolizumab in Metastatic UC
1. Rosenberg JE et al. Lancet. 2016;387:1909-1920.
Treatment
Patients
Cohort 1 (N = 119)1st-line cisplatin
ineligible
Atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV every 3 wk
until RECIST v1.1 progression
IMvigor 210
• Inoperable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma
• Predominantly UC histology
• Tumor tissue evaluable for PD-L1 testinga
Atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV every 3 wk
until loss of clinical benefit
Cohort 2 (N = 310)Platinum-treated mUC
Co-primary endpoints: (1) Confirmed ORR by RECIST v1.1 and central IRF
(2) ORR by investigator-assessed modified RECIST
Key secondary endpoints: DOR, PFS, OS, safety
Dreicer R, et al. IMvigor210: atezolizumab in platinum-treated mUC. ASCO 2016
KEYNOTE-045 Phase 3 Trial (NCT02256436)1
1. Bellmunt J et al. Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer 2016 Annual Meeting (SITC 2016). Abstract 470.
Key Eligibility Criteria• Urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis,
ureter, bladder, or urethra• Transitional cell predominant• PD after 1-2 lines of platinum-based
chemo or recurrence within 12 mo of perioperative platinum-based therapy
• ECOG PS 0-2• Provision of tumor sample for biomarker
assessment
Stratification Factors• ECOG PS (0/1 vs 2)• Hemoglobin level (<10 vs ≥10 g/dL)• Liver metastases (yes vs no)• Time from last chemotherapy dose
(<3 vs ≥3 mo)
Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV Q3W for 2 y
Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 Q3W, orDocetaxel 75 mg/m2 Q3W, orVinflunine 320 mg/m2 Q3W
n = 270
n = 272
R 1:1
N = 542
Key Endpoints• Primary: OS and PFS in total and in PD-L1 combined
positive score ≥10% populations• Secondary: ORR and DOR in total and in PD-L1
combined positive score ≥10% populations; safety in total population
Bellmunt J, et al.
published on
February 17 2017,
at NEJM.org.
DOI:
10.1056/NEJMoa1
613683
Bellmunt J, et al. published on February 17 2017, at NEJM.org.
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613683
Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
Overall Survival
10.3 mo in P vs 7.4 mo C
Progression Free Survival
IMvigor210, CheckMate 275, STUDY 1108 and JAVELIN: Recent Investigational and Registrational Trials in Pretreated mUC*
Patient number
Study Arms
Key Inclusion Criteria
Primary Endpoints
PD-L1 expressionPD-L1+PD-L1-NE/unknown
*No head-to-head studies have been conducted and direct comparisons cannot be made between these studies. †265 patients were evaluated for efficacy. ‡191 locally advanced/mUC patients enrolled and received treatment; 103 patients were eligible for efficacy analysis..§241 mUC patients were evaluated for safety and 153 mUC patients were evaluated for efficacy.BOR, best overall response; E1Loriot Y et al. Poster presentation at ESMO 2016. 783P; 2Sharma P, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 3Powles T, et al. Poster presentation at ASCO GU. 286. 4Patel M et al. Poster presentation at ASCO GU. 330.
CheckMate 2752
NivolumabPhase 2
270†
Nivolumab 3 mg/kg IV q2w
• ≥1 Platinum-containing or ≤12 months of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment
• Tumor tissue for PD-L1 testing
• ECOG PS 0-1
• ORR
1% cut-off on TC• 46%• 54%
Study 11083
DurvalumabPhase 1/2
191‡
Durvalumab10 mg/kg IV q2w
• Histologically confirmed solid tumors
Locally advanced or mUC cohort:• Had progressed, on were
ineligible for, or refused any number of prior therapies
• ECOG PS 0-1
• Safety• ORR
25% cut-off on TC or IC• 51.3%• 41.4%• 7.3%
IMvigor 2101
Atezolizumab Phase 2
310 (Cohort 2)
Atezolizumab 1200 mg (IV) q3w
Cohort 2:• ≥1 Platinum-containing or ≤12
months of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment
• Tumor tissue for PD-L1 testing
• ECOG PS 0-1
• ORR
IC1/2/3 (1% cut-off on IC)• 67%• 33%
JAVELIN solid tumor4
AvelumabPhase 1
241§
Avelumab 10 mg/kg q2w
• Solid tumorsmUC cohort:• Had progressed post-platinum
treatment or cisplatin-ineligible• Unselected for PD-L1• ECOG PS 0-1
• BOR• Safety
5% cut-off on TC• 33.6%• 48.5%• 17.8%
Patients “Unfit” for Cisplatin-based Chemotherapy
• Represents 40-60% of patients with advanced urothelial cancer
• Widely accepted definition includes• ECOG 2 or greater
• Creatinine Clearance ≤ 60 ml/min
• Grade 2 or greater peripheral neuropathy/hearing loss
Carboplatin Combinations for Advanced Bladder Cancer Patients: EORTC Study 30986
De Santis M et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:191-199.
(N = 238)
Gem/Carbo M-CAVI
9.3 months 8.1 months
Median OS
100
80
60
40
20
0Su
rviv
al, %
0 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time, y
M-CAVI
Gem/Carbo
Log-rank test P = .64
Treatmen
tM-CAVI
Gem/Carb
o
O n No. at Risk
44 15 5 2 2 1
37 13 7 3 1 1
119
119
110
108
1
Pembrolizumab
200 mg every 3 wk
Primary Endpoints
• ORR in all patients
• ORR in patients with
PD-L1–positive tumors
Patients (N = 350)
• Advanced urothelial
cancer
• No prior chemotherapy
for metastatic disease
• ECOG PS 0-2
• Ineligible for cisplatin
based on ≥1 of the
following:
– CrCl <60 mL/min
– ECOG PS 2
– ≥ Grade 2 neuropathy
or hearing loss
– NYHA class III CHF
• Secondary Endpoints: DOR, PFS, OS, and ORR in all
patients, PD-L1–positive and PD-L1–high expressing
patients; safety and tolerability
• First 100 patients included in planned interim analysis
– Determine the PD-L1–high expression cutpoint
KEYNOTE-052: Pembrolizumab as Front-Line Therapy
1. Balar A et al. ESMO 2016. Abstract LBA32_PR.
Patient Characteristics:Keynote-052
Balar A et al. Lancet Oncol 2017Published OnlineSeptember 26, 2017http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30616-2
KEYNOTE-052: Efficacy
Balar A et al. Lancet Oncol 2017 Published Online September 26, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1470-2045(17)30616-2
KEYNOTE-052: Efficacy
Balar A et al. Lancet Oncol 2017 Published Online September 26, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1470-2045(17)30616-2
Response in Total Study Population
KEYNOTE-052 Adverse Events
AE, % (N = 370) Any Grade Grade 3-5
Any 46 16
Fatigue 15 2
Pruritus 14 1
Pyrexia 5 1
Decreased appetite 10 2
Diarrhea 8 1
Rash 9 1
ALT/AST increase 11/13 3/3
Nausea 8 1
Muscle spasms 2 2
Balar A et al. Lancet Oncol 2017 Published Online September 26, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1470-2045(17)30616-2
Standard Therapy in Advanced Urothelial Cancer
Setting Regimen Response Rate Median Survival
1st line
Cisplatineligible
MVAC1
Gemcitabine + cisplatin2
PGC3
40%-50%12-15 mo
Cisplatin ineligible
Gemcitabine +carboplatin4-6 36%-56% 7-9 mo
Atezolizumab Pembrolizumab
~24%~15.9 months (atezolizumab)
2nd line
Atezolizumab7
Nivolumab, Durvalumab, AvelumabPembrolizumab 15%-19% 7.9-10.3 mo
Single-agent chemotherapy
~10% 5-8 mo
1. Loehrer PJ Sr et al. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:1066-1073. 2. von der Maase H et al. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3068-3077. 3. Bellmunt J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1107-1113. 4. De
Santis M et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:191-199. 5. Linardou H et al. Urology. 2004;64:479-484. 6. Nogué-Aliguer M et al. Cancer. 2003;97:2180-2186. 7. Rosenberg JE et al. Lancet.
2016;387:1909-1920.
CheckMate-032: Open-Label, Multicenter Phase 1/2 Study
• Treatment beyond progression was permitted if nivolumab was tolerated and clinical benefit was noted
• Patients in the monotherapy arm could cross over to nivolumab combined with ipilimumab after progression if they met prespecified criteria
Nivolumab3 mg/kg IV Q2W
(n = 78)
Nivolumab 3 mg/kg IV Q2W
Pretreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma
Nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg IV Q3W for 4 cycles
(n = 26)
Nivolumab 3 mg/kg + ipilimumab 1 mg/kg IV Q3W for 4 cycles
(n = 105)
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01928394. Accessed May 15, 2017.
Summary
• Immune checkpoint therapy is a standard of care for patients progressing on front-line therapy platinum-based chemotherapy
• For many “unfit” patients front line checkpoint inhibitor therapy is appropriate, although subsets of patients may benefit from cytotoxic therapy used upfront
• PDL1 expression as a biomarker to decide therapy is not useful in making therapy decisions
• Combinatorial immunomodulatory therapies are being broadly investigated
• For a modest but real subset of patients checkpoint inhibitor therapy has provided a paradigm shifting benefit