PURPOSE: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy remains the standard of care for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC); however, toxicity is substantial, responses are rarely durable, and many patients with la/mUC are ineligible. Each enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab have shown a survival benefit versus chemotherapy in UC, are not restricted by cisplatin eligibility, and warrant investigation as a first-line (1L) combination therapy in patients ineligible for cisplatin. METHODS: In this ongoing phase Ib/II, multicenter, open-label study, 1L cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC received enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg once daily on days 1 and 8 and pembrolizumab 200 mg (day 1) intravenously once daily in 3-week cycles. The primary end point was safety. Key secondary end points included confirmed objective response rate, duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty-five patients received enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were peripheral sensory neuropathy (55.6%), fatigue (51.1%), and alopecia (48.9%). Twenty-nine patients (64.4%) had grade 3 or higher TRAEs; the most common were increased lipase (17.8%), maculopapular rash (11.1%), and fatigue (11.1%). One death (2.2%) was classified as a TRAE. The confirmed objective response rate after a median of nine cycles was 73.3% with a complete response rate of 15.6%. The median DOR and median OS were 25.6 months and 26.1 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab showed a manageable safety profile. Most patients experienced tumor shrinkage. The median DOR and median OS exceeding 2 years in a cisplatin-ineligible patient population make this a promising combination currently under investigation in a phase III study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04223856 ).

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy have limited first-line (1L) treatment options and significant need for improved therapies. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab (Pembro) individually have shown a survival benefit in urothelial cancer in second-line + la/mUC settings. Here, we present data from the pivotal trial of EV plus Pembro (EV + Pembro) in the 1L setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In Cohort K of the EV-103 phase Ib/II study, cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated la/mUC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive EV as monotherapy or in combination with Pembro. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety. There were no formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms. RESULTS: The cORR was 64.5% (95% CI, 52.7 to 75.1) and 45.2% (95% CI, 33.5 to 57.3) for patients treated with EV + Pembro (N = 76) and EV monotherapy (N = 73), respectively. The median DOR was not reached for the combination and was 13.2 months for monotherapy; 65.4% and 56.3% of patients who responded to the combination and monotherapy, respectively, maintained a response at 12 months. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients treated with the combination were maculopapular rash (17.1%), fatigue (9.2%), and neutropenia (9.2%). EV TRAEs of special interest (any grade) in the combination arm included skin reactions (67.1%) and peripheral neuropathy (60.5%). CONCLUSION: EV + Pembro showed a high cORR with durable responses as 1L treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC. Patients who received EV monotherapy had a response and safety profile consistent with previous studies. Adverse events for EV + Pembro were manageable, with no new safety signals observed.

Opinion Statement: The treatment landscape of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has evolved significantly over the past three decades. Active surveillance and tumor ablation are alternatives to extirpative therapy in appropriately selected patients. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging noninvasive alternative to treat primary RCC tumors. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has greatly improved the overall survival of advanced RCC, and now the ICI-based doublet (dual ICI-ICI doublet; or ICI in combination with a vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, ICI-TKI doublet) has become the standard frontline therapy. Based on unprecedented outcomes in the metastatic with ICIs, they are also being explored in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting for patients with high-risk disease. Adjuvant pembrolizumab has proven efficacy to reduce the risk of RCC recurrence after nephrectomy. Historically considered a radioresistant tumor, SBRT occupies an expanding role to treat RCC with oligometastasis or oligoprogression in combination with systemic therapy. Furthermore, SBRT is being investigated in combination with ICI-doublet in the advanced disease setting. Lastly, given the treatment paradigm is shifting to adopt ICIs at earlier disease course, the prospective studies guiding treatment sequencing in the post-ICI setting is maturing. The effort is ongoing in search of predictive biomarkers to guide optimal treatment option in RCC.

PURPOSE: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

PURPOSE: In this phase II response-adaptive trial, we investigated the rational application of immune checkpoint blockade in renal cell carcinoma (RCC; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03203473 ). METHODS: We enrolled patients with metastatic RCC with no prior checkpoint inhibitor exposure. All patients received nivolumab alone with subsequent arm allocation based on response. Patients with a confirmed partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) within 6 months discontinued nivolumab and were observed (arm A). Patients with stable disease or progressive disease (PD) after no more than 6 months of nivolumab received two doses of ipilimumab (arm B). The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with PR/CR at 1 year after nivolumab discontinuation (arm A) and proportion of nivolumab nonresponders who converted to PR/CR after ipilimumab (arm B). RESULTS: Overall, 83 patients initiated treatment, of whom 96% had clear-cell histology, 51% were treatment naïve, and 67% had intermediate/poor-risk disease. Median follow-up was 19.5 months. Within 6 months, induction nivolumab resulted in a confirmed PR in 12% of patients (n = 10). Fourteen patients were not allocated to a study arm (seven because of toxicity, seven because of PD). Twelve patients (14%) were allocated to arm A and discontinued nivolumab, of whom five (42%; 90% CI, 18% to 68%) remained off nivolumab at ≥ 1 year. Of 57 patients (69%) allocated to arm B, two patients converted to a confirmed PR (4%; 90% CI, 1% to 11%), and no CRs were observed. CONCLUSION: In this study, nivolumab followed by two doses of ipilimumab resulted in no CRs and a low PR/CR conversion. The number of patients evaluated for nivolumab discontinuation was too small to assess the value of this approach. Currently, our data do not support a response-adaptive strategy for checkpoint blockade in advanced RCC.