Phase Ib Study of Atezolizumab Plus Interferon-α with or without Bevacizumab in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma and Other Solid Tumors.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Blank CU
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8700717 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Bevacizumab is an antibody that binds to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and has activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Interferon alfa (IFN) is a historic standard first-line treatment for RCC. A prospective, randomized phase III trial of bevacizumab plus IFN versus IFN monotherapy was conducted.Patients with previously untreated, metastatic clear-cell RCC were randomly assigned to receive either bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus IFN (9 million U subcutaneously three times weekly) or the same dose and schedule of IFN monotherapy in a multicenter phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.Between October 2003 and July 2005, 732 patients were enrolled. The prespecified stopping rule for OS has not yet been reached. The median PFS was 8.5 months in patients receiving bevacizumab plus IFN (95% CI, 7.5 to 9.7 months) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.1 to 5.6 months) in patients receiving IFN monotherapy (log-rank P < .0001). The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.83; P < .0001). Bevacizumab plus IFN had a higher ORR as compared with IFN (25.5% [95% CI, 20.9% to 30.6%] v 13.1% [95% CI, 9.5% to 17.3%]; P < .0001). Overall toxicity was greater for bevacizumab plus IFN, including significantly more grade 3 hypertension (9% v 0%), anorexia (17% v 8%), fatigue (35% v 28%), and proteinuria (13% v 0%).Bevacizumab plus IFN produces a superior PFS and ORR in untreated patients with metastatic RCC as compared with IFN monotherapy. Toxicity is greater in the combination therapy arm.
| S-EPMC2651074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Preclinical evidence suggests that MEK inhibition promotes accumulation and survival of intratumoral tumor-specific T cells and can synergize with immune checkpoint inhibition. We investigated the safety and clinical activity of combining a MEK inhibitor, cobimetinib, and a programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, atezolizumab, in patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS:This phase I/Ib study treated PD-L1/PD-1-naive patients with solid tumors in a dose-escalation stage and then in multiple, indication-specific dose-expansion cohorts. In most patients, cobimetinib was dosed once daily orally for 21?days on, 7?days off. Atezolizumab was dosed at 800?mg intravenously every 2?weeks. The primary objectives were safety and tolerability. Secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS:Between 27 December 2013 and 9 May 2016, 152 patients were enrolled. As of 4 September 2017, 150 patients received ?1 dose of atezolizumab, including 14 in the dose-escalation cohorts and 136 in the dose-expansion cohorts. Patients had metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; n?=?84), melanoma (n?=?22), non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n?=?28), and other solid tumors (n?=?16). The most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (67%), rash (48%), and fatigue (40%), similar to those with single-agent cobimetinib and atezolizumab. One (<1%) treatment-related grade 5 AE occurred (sepsis). Forty-five (30%) and 23 patients (15%) had AEs that led to discontinuation of cobimetinib and atezolizumab, respectively. Confirmed responses were observed in 7 of 84 patients (8%) with mCRC (6 responders were microsatellite low/stable, 1 was microsatellite instable), 9 of 22 patients (41%) with melanoma, and 5 of 28 patients (18%) with NSCLC. Clinical activity was independent of KRAS/BRAF status across diseases. CONCLUSIONS:Atezolizumab plus cobimetinib had manageable safety and clinical activity irrespective of KRAS/BRAF status. Although potential synergistic activity was seen in mCRC, this was not confirmed in a subsequent phase III study. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER:NCT01988896 (the investigators in the NCT01988896 study are listed in the supplementary Appendix, available at Annals of Oncology online).
| S-EPMC6931236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAtezolizumab, bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (ABCP) demonstrated survival benefit versus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (BCP) in chemotherapy-naïve nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to provide additional information on the relative impact of adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in nonsquamous NSCLC.MethodsPatients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (ACP), ABCP, or BCP. Coprimary end points were overall survival and investigator-assessed progression-free survival. The incidence, nature, and severity of adverse events (AEs) were assessed. PROs, a secondary end point, were evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-Core 30 and EORTC QLQ-Lung Cancer 13.ResultsOverall, 400 (ACP), 393 (ABCP), and 394 (BCP) patients were safety evaluable (ie, intention-to-treat population that received one or more doses of any study treatment). More patients had grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs during the induction versus maintenance phase (ACP, 40.5% v 8.2%; ABCP, 48.6% v 21.2%; BCP, 44.7% v 11.1%). During induction, the incidence of serious AEs (SAEs) was 28.3%, 28.5%, and 26.4% in the ACP, ABCP, and BCP arms, respectively. During maintenance, SAE incidences were 20.0%, 26.3%, and 13.0%, respectively. Completion rates of the PRO questionnaires were > 88% at baseline and remained ≥ 70% throughout most study visits. Across arms, patients on average reported no clinically meaningful worsening of global health status or physical functioning scores through cycle 13. Patients across arms rated common symptoms with chemotherapy and immunotherapy similarly.ConclusionABCP seems tolerable and manageable versus ACP and BCP in first-line nonsquamous NSCLC. Treatment tolerability differed between induction and maintenance phases across treatment arms. PROs reflect a minimal treatment burden (eg, health-related quality of life, symptoms) with each regimen.
| S-EPMC7392741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features.Main outcomes and measuresHealth care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness.ResultsIn the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy.
| S-EPMC8027915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab following disease progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy in patients with mRCC.Design, setting, and participantsIMmotion150 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.InterventionPatients 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 analysisThe 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 limitationsFifty-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.ConclusionsThe 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 summaryPatients 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.
| S-EPMC9357270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeBevacizumab is an antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor and has activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Interferon alfa (IFN-alpha) is the historic standard initial treatment for RCC. A prospective, randomized, phase III trial of bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha versus IFN-alpha monotherapy was conducted.Patients and methodsPatients with previously untreated, metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to receive either bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus IFN-alpha (9 million units subcutaneously three times weekly) or the same dose and schedule of IFN-alpha monotherapy in a multicenter phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and safety.ResultsSeven hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled. The median OS time was 18.3 months (95% CI, 16.5 to 22.5 months) for bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha and 17.4 months (95% CI, 14.4 to 20.0 months) for IFN-alpha monotherapy (unstratified log-rank P = .097). Adjusting on stratification factors, the hazard ratio was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01; stratified log-rank P = .069) favoring bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha. There was significantly more grade 3 to 4 hypertension (HTN), anorexia, fatigue, and proteinuria for bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha. Patients who developed HTN on bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha had a significantly improved PFS and OS versus patients without HTN.ConclusionOS favored the bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha arm but did not meet the predefined criteria for significance. HTN may be a biomarker of outcome with bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha.
| S-EPMC2860433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Targeting multiple regulators of tumor angiogenesis have the potential to improve treatment efficacy. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor and ABT-510 is a synthetic analog of thrombospondin, an endogenous angiogenesis inhibitor. Dual inhibition may result in additional benefit. We evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the combination of bevacizumab plus ABT-510 in patients with refractory solid tumors. We also explored the effects of these agents on plasma-based biomarkers and wound angiogenesis. Thirty-four evaluable subjects were enrolled and received study drug. Therapy was well tolerated; minimal treatment-related grade 3/4 toxicity was observed. One patient treated at dose level 1 had a partial response and five other patients treated at the recommended phase II dose had prolonged stable disease for more than 1 year. Biomarker evaluation revealed increased levels of D-dimer, von Willebrand factor, placental growth factor, and stromal-derived factor 1 in response to treatment with the combination of bevacizumab and ABT-510. Data suggest that continued evaluation of combination antiangiogenesis therapies may be clinically useful.
| S-EPMC3699843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Anti-tumour immune activation by checkpoint inhibitors leads to durable responses in a variety of cancers, but combination approaches are required to extend this benefit beyond a subset of patients. In preclinical models tumour-derived VEGF limits immune cell activity while anti-VEGF augments intra-tumoral T-cell infiltration, potentially through vascular normalization and endothelial cell activation. This study investigates how VEGF blockade with bevacizumab could potentiate PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition with atezolizumab in mRCC. Tissue collections are before treatment, after bevacizumab and after the addition of atezolizumab. We discover that intra-tumoral CD8(+) T cells increase following combination treatment. A related increase is found in intra-tumoral MHC-I, Th1 and T-effector markers, and chemokines, most notably CX3CL1 (fractalkine). We also discover that the fractalkine receptor increases on peripheral CD8(+) T cells with treatment. Furthermore, trafficking lymphocyte increases are observed in tumors following bevacizumab and combination treatment. These data suggest that the anti-VEGF and anti-PD-L1 combination improves antigen-specific T-cell migration.
| S-EPMC5013615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeModulation of vascular endothelial growth factor-mediated immune suppression via angiogenesis inhibition may augment the activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report results from the dose-finding and initial phase II expansion of a phase Ib/II study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with selected advanced solid tumors.MethodsEligible patients had metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), endometrial cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or urothelial cancer. The primary objective of phase Ib was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks). In the preplanned phase II cohort expansion, the primary objective was objective response rate at week 24 (ORRweek 24) at the recommended phase II dose.ResultsOverall, 137 patients were enrolled during phase Ib (n = 13) and the initial phase II expansion (n = 124). Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; grade 3 arthralgia and grade 3 fatigue) were reported in the initial dose level (lenvatinib 24 mg/d plus pembrolizumab). No DLTs were observed in the subsequent dose-de-escalation cohort, establishing the MTD and recommended phase II dose at lenvatinib 20 mg/d plus pembrolizumab. ORRweek24 was as follows: RCC, 63% (19/30; 95% CI, 43.9% to 80.1%); endometrial cancer, 52% (12/23; 95% CI, 30.6% to 73.2%); melanoma, 48% (10/21; 95% CI, 25.7% to 70.2%); SCCHN, 36% (8/22; 95% CI, 17.2% to 59.3%); NSCLC, 33% (7/21; 95% CI, 14.6% to 57.0%); and urothelial cancer 25% (5/20; 95% CI, 8.7% to 49.1%). The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (58%), diarrhea (52%), hypertension (47%), and hypothyroidism (42%).ConclusionLenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in patients with selected solid tumor types.
| S-EPMC7145588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial designed to test novel agents in predefined patient subgroups in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Patients and methodsPatients with measurable, unresectable, previously untreated mCRC received induction with ≤8 cycles of FOLFOX + bevacizumab followed by randomization to maintenance treatment comprising control [fluoropyrimidine (FP)/bevacizumab: 5-fluorouracil 1600-2400 mg/m2 46-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion day 1 q2 weeks plus leucovorin 400 mg/m2 2-h infusion i.v. day 1 q2 weeks or capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 b.i.d. orally days 1-14 every 21 days; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg 15-30-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks] or experimental treatment in one of four biomarker-driven cohorts. In patients with BRAF wild-type (BRAFwt) tumors (cohort 2), experimental treatment was FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab (800 mg 60-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks). Primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; intent-to-treat population). Enrollment is complete; efficacy and safety findings from cohort 2 are presented.ResultsFour hundred and forty-five patients with BRAFwt mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to maintenance in cohort 2. At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, PFS outcome hypothesis was not met [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-1.17; P = 0.48]; overall survival (OS) was immature. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months (2-year survival follow-up), PFS benefit was also not met (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.18; P = 0.666); OS HR with nearly two-thirds of patients with events was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.05; P = 0.117). No new safety signals were identified. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for experimental versus control arms were hypertension (6.1% versus 4.2%), diarrhea (3.1% versus 2.1%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (1.0% versus 2.5%). Four patients experienced TEAEs with fatal outcome, two were study treatment-related: hepatic failure (experimental arm) and large intestine perforation (control arm; bevacizumab-related).ConclusionsAdding atezolizumab to FP/bevacizumab as first-line maintenance treatment after FOLFOX + bevacizumab induction for BRAFwt mCRC did not improve efficacy outcomes.
| S-EPMC9588902 | biostudies-literature