Thomas Hutson D.O.

Pal, S. K., B. McGregor, C. Suárez, C. K. Tsao, W. Kelly, U. Vaishampayan, L. Pagliaro, B. L. Maughan, Y. Loriot, D. Castellano, S. Srinivas, R. R. McKay, R. Dreicer, T. Hutson, S. Dubey, S. Werneke, A. Panneerselvam, D. Curran, C. Scheffold, T. K. Choueiri and N. Agarwal (2021). “Cabozantinib in Combination With Atezolizumab for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the COSMIC-021 Study.” J Clin Oncol: Jco2100939.

Full text of this article.

COSMIC-021 is evaluating cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in patients with solid tumors. We report results from patients with advanced clear cell (cc) and non–clear cell (ncc) renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This phase Ib study (NCT03170960) enrolled patients age ≥ 18 years with advanced RCC. A dose-escalation stage was followed by expansion cohorts. For cohort expansion, prior systemic therapy was not permitted for ccRCC but allowed for nccRCC. Patients received oral cabozantinib 40 mg once a day (ccRCC and nccRCC) or 60 mg once a day (ccRCC only) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg intravenously, once every 3 weeks). The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1; the secondary end point was safety. A total of 102 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 25.8, 15.3, and 13.3 months for the 40-mg ccRCC, 60-mg ccRCC, and nccRCC groups, respectively. ORR was 53% (80% CI, 41 to 65) in the 40-mg ccRCC group (n = 34) and 58% (80% CI, 46 to 70) in the 60-mg ccRCC group (n = 36), 3% and 11%, respectively, with complete response; median progression-free survival (exploratory end point) was 19.5 and 15.1 months, respectively. In nccRCC (n = 32), ORR was 31% (80% CI, 20 to 44), all partial responses; median progression-free survival was 9.5 months. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported by 71% of patients in the 40-mg ccRCC group, 67% in the 60-mg ccRCC group, and 38% in the nccRCC group; TRAEs leading to discontinuation of both agents occurred in 15%, 6%, and 3% of patients, respectively. There were no grade 5 TRAEs. The novel combination of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab demonstrated encouraging clinical activity and acceptable tolerability in patients with advanced ccRCC and nccRCC. Disease control was observed across dose levels and histologic subtypes. [Abstract from article].

Shore, N.D., Palou Redorta, J., Robert, G., Hutson, T.E., Cesari, R., Hariharan, S., Rodríguez Faba, Ó., Briganti, A. and Steinberg, G.D. (2021). “Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: An overview of potential new treatment options.” Urol Oncol Jun 21;S1078-1439(21)00221-0. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

AIM: This review article summarizes the current clinical practice guidelines around disease definitions and risk stratifications, and the treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Recently completed and ongoing clinical trials of novel and investigational therapies in Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-naïve, BCG-recurrent, and BCG-unresponsive patient populations are also described, e.g., those involving immune checkpoint inhibitors, targeted therapies, other chemotherapy regimens, vaccines, and viral- or bacterial-based treatments. Finally, a brief overview of enhanced cystoscopy and drug delivery systems for the diagnosis and treatment of NMIBC is provided. BACKGROUND: A global shortage of access to BCG is affecting the management of BCG-naïve and BCG-recurrent/unresponsive NMIBC; hence, there is an urgent need to assist patients and urologists to enhance the treatment of this disease. METHODS: Searches of ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and Google Scholar were conducted. Published guidance and conference proceedings from major congresses were reviewed. CONCLUSION: Treatment strategies for NMIBC are generally consistent across guidelines. Several novel therapies have demonstrated promising antitumor activity in clinical trials, including in high-risk or BCG-unresponsive disease. The detection, diagnosis, surveillance, and treatment of NMIBC have also been improved through enhanced disease detection.

Hutson, T.E., Michaelson, M.D., Kuzel, T.M., Agarwal, N., Molina, A.M., Hsieh, J.J., Vaishampayan, U.N., Xie, R., Bapat, U., Ye, W., Jain, R.K. and Fishman, M.N. (2021). “A Single-arm, Multicenter, Phase 2 Study of Lenvatinib Plus Everolimus in Patients with Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.” Eur Urol.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) accounts for ≤20% of RCC cases. Lenvatinib (a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor) in combination with everolimus (an mTOR inhibitor) is approved for the treatment of advanced RCC after one prior antiangiogenic therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of lenvatinib plus everolimus as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced nccRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study enrolled patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic nccRCC and no prior anticancer therapy for advanced disease. INTERVENTION: Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) orally once daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by investigators according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety assessments. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ORRs were calculated using the two-sided Clopper-Pearson method. Median PFS and median OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and their 95% CIs were estimated via a generalized Brookmeyer and Crowley method. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The study (start date: February 20, 2017) enrolled 31 patients with nccRCC (papillary, n = 20; chromophobe, n = 9; unclassified, n = 2). At the data cutoff date (July 17, 2019), the best overall response was a partial response (eight patients: papillary, n = 3; chromophobe, n = 4; unclassified, n = 1) for an overall ORR of 26% (95% CI 12-45). Median PFS was 9.2 mo (95% CI 5.5-not estimable), and median OS was 15.6 mo (95% CI 9.2-not estimable). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (71%), diarrhea (58%), decreased appetite (55%), nausea (55%), and vomiting (52%). Limitations include the small sample size and single-arm design. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus everolimus showed promising anticancer activity in patients with advanced nccRCC with an ORR of 26% and is worthy of further study. The safety profile was consistent with the established profile of the study-drug combination. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus as the first therapy for 31 patients who had advanced nccRCC. We found that this treatment seemed effective, because most patients had a decrease in tumor size and manageable treatment-related side effects. CLINICAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov as NCT02915783.

Powles, T., Atkins, M.B., Escudier, B., Motzer, R.J., Rini, B.I., Fong, L., Joseph, R.W., Pal, S.K., Sznol, M., Hainsworth, J., Stadler, W.M., Hutson, T.E., Ravaud, A., Bracarda, S., Suarez, C., Choueiri, T.K., Reeves, J., Cohn, A., Ding, B., Leng, N., Hashimoto, K., Huseni, M., Schiff, C. and McDermott, D.F. (2021). “Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Following Disease Progression on Atezolizumab or Sunitinib Monotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in IMmotion150: A Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial.” Eur Urol 79(5): 665-673.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy as second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cancer (mRCC) has not been evaluated prospectively. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab following disease progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy in patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: IMmotion150 was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of patients with untreated mRCC. Patients randomized to the atezolizumab or sunitinib arm who had investigator-assessed progression as per RECIST 1.1 could be treated with second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab. INTERVENTION: Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (IV) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 wk following disease progression on either atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The secondary endpoints analyzed during the second-line part of IMmotion150 included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. PFS was examined using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Fifty-nine patients in the atezolizumab arm and 78 in the sunitinib arm were eligible, and 103 initiated second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezolizumab arm, n = 44; sunitinib arm, n = 59). ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 27% (19-37%). The median PFS (95% CI) from the start of second line was 8.7 (5.6-13.7) mo. The median event follow-up duration was 19.4 (12.9-21.9) mo among the 25 patients without a PFS event. Eighty-six (83%) patients had treatment-related adverse events; 31 of 103 (30%) had grade 3/4 events. Limitations were the small sample size and selection for progressors. CONCLUSIONS: The atezolizumab + bevacizumab combination had activity and was tolerable in patients with progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib. Further studies are needed to investigate sequencing strategies in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with advanced kidney cancer whose disease had worsened during treatment with atezolizumab or sunitinib began second-line treatment with atezolizumab + bevacizumab. Tumors shrank in more than one-quarter of patients treated with this combination, and side effects were manageable.

Harrison, M.R., Costello, B.A., Bhavsar, N.A., Vaishampayan, U., Pal, S.K., Zakharia, Y., Jim, H.S.L., Fishman, M.N., Molina, A.M., Kyriakopoulos, C.E., Tsao, C.K., Appleman, L.J., Gartrell, B.A., Hussain, A., Stadler, W.M., Agarwal, N., Pachynski, R.K., Hutson, T.E., Hammers, H.J., Ryan, C.W., Inman, B.A., Mardekian, J., Borham, A. and George, D.J. (2021). “Active surveillance of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a prospective observational study (MaRCC).” Cancer Mar 25. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Systemic 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. METHODS: This 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 χ(2) 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSIONS: AS occurs frequently (32%) in real-world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.