Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and durable response benefits versus sunitinib (SUN) with long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated analyses with 8 years of median follow-up from CheckMate 214. Patients with aRCC (N = 1096) were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × four doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. The endpoints included OS, independent radiology review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and IRRC-assessed objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) patients. With 8 years (99.1 months) of median follow-up, the hazard ratio [HR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.72 (0.62-0.83) in ITT patients, 0.69 (0.59-0.81) in I/P patients, and 0.82 (0.60-1.13) in FAV patients. PFS probabilities at 90 months were 22.8% versus 10.8% (ITT), 25.4% versus 8.5% (I/P), and 12.7% versus 17.0% (FAV), respectively. ORR with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 39.5% versus 33.0% (ITT), 42.4% versus 27.5% (I/P), and 29.6% versus 51.6% (FAV). Rates of complete response were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (ITT, 12.0% versus 3.5%; I/P, 11.8% versus 2.6%; FAV, 12.8% versus 6.5%). The median duration of response (95% CI) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 76.2 versus 25.1 months [59.1 months-not estimable (NE) versus 19.8-33.2 months] in ITT patients, 82.8 versus 19.8 months (54.1 months-NE versus 16.4-26.4 months) in I/P patients, and 61.5 versus 33.2 months (27.8 months-NE versus 24.8-51.4 months) in FAV patients. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. Exploratory post hoc analyses are reported for FAV patients, those receiving subsequent therapy based on their response status, clinical subpopulations, and adverse events over time. Superior survival, durable response benefits, and a manageable safety profile were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 8 years, the longest phase III follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in aRCC.

BGJ398, a potent and selective pan-FGFR antagonist, was prospectively evaluated in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma bearing a diverse array of FGFR3 alterations. Patients (N = 67) who were unable to receive platinum chemotherapy were enrolled. The majority (70.1%) had received two or more prior antineoplastic therapies. BGJ398 was administered orally at 125 mg/day on a 3 weeks on, 1 week off schedule until unacceptable toxicity or progression. The primary endpoint was the response rate. Among 67 patients treated, an overall response rate of 25.4% was observed and an additional 38.8% of patients had disease stabilization, translating to a disease control rate of 64.2%. The most common treatment-emergent toxicities were hyperphosphatemia, elevated creatinine, fatigue, constipation, and decreased appetite. Further examination of BGJ398 in this disease setting is warranted. Significance: BJG398 is active in patients with alterations in FGFR3, resulting in both reductions in tumor volume and stabilization of disease. Our data highlight putative mechanisms of resistance to the agent, which may be useful in following disease status. Cancer Discov; 8(7); 812–21. ©2018 AACR. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 781

Purpose: The antibody–drug conjugate enfortumab vedotin (EV) releases a cytotoxic agent into tumor cells via binding to the membrane receptor NECTIN-4. EV was recently approved for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) without prior assessment of the tumor receptor status as ubiquitous NECTIN-4 expression is assumed. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of membranous NECTIN-4 protein expression in primary tumors (PRIM) and patient-matched distant metastases (MET). Experimental Design: Membranous NECTIN-4 protein expression was measured (H-score) by IHC in PRIM and corresponding MET (N = 137) and in a multicenter EV-treated cohort (N = 47). Progression-free survival (PFS) after initiation of EV treatment was assessed for the NECTIN-4–negative/weak (H-score 0–99) versus moderate/strong (H-score 100–300) subgroup. The specificity of the NECTIN-4 IHC staining protocol was validated by establishing CRISPR-Cas9–induced polyclonal NECTIN-4 knockouts. Results: In our cohort, membranous NECTIN-4 expression significantly decreased during metastatic spread (Wilcoxon matched pairs P < 0.001; median H-score = 40; interquartile range, 0–140), with 39.4% of MET lacking membranous NECTIN-4 expression. In our multicenter EV cohort, absence or weak membranous NECTIN-4 expression (34.0% of the cohort) was associated with a significantly shortened PFS on EV (log-rank P < 0.001). Conclusions: Membranous NECTIN-4 expression is frequently decreased or absent in mUC tissue. Of note, the clinical benefit of EV strongly depends on membranous NECTIN-4 expression. Thus, our results are of highest clinical relevance and argue for a critical reconsideration of the current practice and suggest that the NECTIN-4 receptor status should be determined (ideally in a metastatic/progressive lesion) before initiation of EV. See related commentary by Aggen et al., p. 1377

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

PURPOSE: The anti-NECTIN4 antibody-drug conjugate enfortumab vedotin (EV) is approved for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). However, durable benefit is only achieved in a small, yet uncharacterized patient subset. NECTIN4 is located on chromosome 1q23.3, and 1q23.3 gains represent frequent copy number variations (CNVs) in urothelial cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate NECTIN4 amplifications as a genomic biomarker to predict EV response in patients with mUC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We established a NECTIN4-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay to assess the predictive value of NECTIN4 CNVs in a multicenter EV-treated mUC patient cohort (mUC-EV, n = 108). CNVs were correlated with membranous NECTIN4 protein expression, EV treatment responses, and outcomes. We also assessed the prognostic value of NECTIN4 CNVs measured in metastatic biopsies of non–EV-treated mUC (mUC-non-EV, n = 103). Furthermore, we queried The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data sets (10,712 patients across 32 cancer types) for NECTIN4 CNVs. RESULTS: NECTIN4 amplifications are frequent genomic events in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (TCGA bladder cancer data set: approximately 17%) and mUC (approximately 26% in our mUC cohorts). In mUC-EV, NECTIN4 amplification represents a stable genomic alteration during metastatic progression and associates with enhanced membranous NECTIN4 protein expression. Ninety-six percent (27 of 28) of patients with NECTIN4 amplifications demonstrated objective responses to EV compared with 32% (24 of 74) in the nonamplified subgroup ( P < .001). In multivariable Cox analysis adjusted for age, sex, and Bellmunt risk factors, NECTIN4 amplifications led to a 92% risk reduction for death (hazard ratio, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.34]; P < .001). In the mUC-non-EV, NECTIN4 amplifications were not associated with outcomes. TCGA Pan-Cancer analysis demonstrated that NECTIN4 amplifications occur frequently in other cancers, for example, in 5%-10% of breast and lung cancers. CONCLUSION: NECTIN4 amplifications are genomic predictors of EV responses and long-term survival in patients with mUC.