BACKGROUND Nivolumab, a programmed death-1 checkpoint inhibitor, demonstrated encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in renal cell carcinoma after prior treatment. METHODS Eight hundred twenty-one patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic therapies were randomized (1:1) to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or everolimus 10-mg tablet orally once daily. Primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included objective response rate and safety. RESULTS Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) overall survival was 25.0 months (21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The hazard ratio for risk of death with nivolumab versus everolimus was 0.73 (98.5% CI, 0.57 to 0.93; P=0.0018), meeting the predefined criterion for superiority (P≤0.0148). Objective response rate was greater with nivolumab (25%) than everolimus (5%; odds ratio 5.98; 95% CI, 3.68 to 9.72; P<0.001). Median (95% CI) progression-free survival was 4.6 months (3.7 to 5.4) with nivolumab and 4.4 months (3.7 to 5.5) with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P=0.11). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19% (nivolumab) and 37% (everolimus) of patients; most common was fatigue (3%) with nivolumab and anemia (8%) with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS Overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred for nivolumab versus everolimus in treatment-experienced patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01668784

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have been described with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the incidence and relative risk (RR) of irAEs associated with these drugs remains unclear. We selected five key irAEs from treatments with approved cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors (ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab, respectively) to better characterize their safety profile. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized phase II/III immunotherapy trials, with non-ICI control arms, conducted between 1996 and 2016. We calculated the incidence and RR of selected all-grade and high-grade gastrointestinal, liver, skin, endocrine, and pulmonary irAEs across the trials using random-effect models. Twenty-one trials were included, totaling 11,454 patients, of whom 6528 received an ICI (nivolumab, 1534; pembrolizumab, 1522; atezolizumab, 751; and ipilimumab, 2721) and 4926 had not. Compared to non-ICI arms, ICIs were associated with more all-grade colitis (RR 7.66, P < 0.001), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevation (RR 1.80; P = 0.020), rash (RR 2.50; P = 0.001), hypothyroidism (RR 6.81; P < 0.001), and pneumonitis (RR 4.14; P = 0.012). Rates of high-grade colitis (RR 5.85; P < 0.001) and AST elevation (RR 2.79; P = 0.014) were higher in the ICI arms. Ipilimumab was associated with a higher risk of all-grade rash (P = 0.006) and high-grade colitis (P = 0.021) compared to PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs. Incidence of fatal irAE was < 1%. This meta-analysis offers substantial evidence that ICIs are associated with a small but significant increase in risk of selected all-grade irAEs and high-grade gastrointestinal and liver toxicities. Although fatal irAEs remain rare, AEs should be recognized promptly as early interventions may alleviate future complications.

PURPOSE The present study sought to identify pretreatment prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract (TCCU) who experienced treatment failure with the first-line, platinum-based regimen included in the phase III vinflunine trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS In total, 370 patients with platinum-refractory TCCU were included in this analysis. Potential prognostic factors were recorded prospectively. Univariate analysis was used to identify clinical and laboratory factors that significantly impact survival. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent prognostic factors, and bootstrap analysis was performed for internal validation, forming a prognostic model. External validation was performed on the phase II vinflunine study CA183001. RESULTS Multivariate analysis and the internal validation identified Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) more than 0, hemoglobin level less than 10 g/dL, and the presence of liver metastasis as the main adverse prognostic factors for OS. External validation confirmed these prognostic factors. Four subgroups were formed based on the presence of zero, one, two, or three prognostic factors; the median OS times for these groups were 14.2, 7.3, 3.8, and 1.7 months (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSION We identified and both internally and externally validated three adverse risk factors (PS, hemoglobin level, and liver metastasis) that predict for OS and developed a scoring system that classifies patients with platinum-refractory disease on second-line chemotherapy into four risk groups with different outcome. Similar to the first-line setting, the presence of visceral metastases and poor PS predict a worse prognosis. These factors, together with low hemoglobin, can be used for prognostication and future patient stratification in clinical trials.

In a pooled analysis of randomized trials in unfavorable-risk prostate cancer, ADT use was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death but was associated with a lower risk of PCSM and all-cause mortality.

Treatment with VEGFR TKIs sunitinib and sorafenib is associated with a significant increase in the risk of ATEs.

No abstract

Background CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long‐term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. Methods The randomized, open‐label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression‐free survival (PFS), safety, and health‐related quality of life (HRQOL). Results Eight hundred twenty‐one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow‐up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2‐29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6‐22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62‐0.85) with 5‐year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72‐0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment‐related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. Conclusions The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow‐up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long‐term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard‐of‐care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long‐lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

This is the first comprehensive report to show that bevacizumab is associated with an increased risk of significant heart failure in patients with breast cancer.