No abstract

Purpose This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy. Patients and Methods A total of 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade) or ≥ pT3, including N1, clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib or placebo for 1 year; 403 patients received a starting dose of 800 mg or placebo. To address toxicity attrition, the 800-mg starting dose was lowered to 600 mg, and the primary end point analysis was changed to disease-free survival (DFS) for pazopanib 600 mg versus placebo (n = 1,135). Primary analysis was performed after 350 DFS events in the intent-to-treat (ITT) pazopanib 600 mg group (ITT600mg), and DFS follow-up analysis was performed 12 months later. Secondary end point analyses included DFS with ITT pazopanib 800 mg (ITT800mg) and safety. Results The primary analysis results of DFS ITT600mg favored pazopanib but did not show a significant improvement over placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = .165). The secondary analysis of DFS in ITT800mg (n = 403) yielded an HR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.94). Follow-up analysis in ITT600mg yielded an HR of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14). Increased ALT and AST were common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the pazopanib 600 mg (ALT, 16%; AST, 5%) and 800 mg (ALT, 18%; AST, 7%) groups. Conclusion The results of the primary DFS analysis of pazopanib 600 mg showed no benefit over placebo in the adjuvant setting.

No abstract

No abstract

5015 Background: Erdafitinib (JNJ-42756493; ERDA) is the only pan-FGFR kinase inhibitor with US FDA approval for treatment of adults with mUC with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations (alt) and who progressed on ≥ 1 line of prior platinum-based chemotherapy (chemo). Approval was based on data from the primary analysis of the pivotal BLC2001 trial1. Here we report long-term efficacy and safety data from the 8 mg/d continuous dose regimen in BLC2001. Methods: BLC2001 (NCT02365597) is a global, open-label, phase 2 trial of pts with measurable mUC with prespecified FGFR alt, ECOG 0-2, and progression during/following ≥ 1 line of prior chemo or ≤ 12 mos of (neo)adjuvant chemo, or were cisplatin ineligible, chemo naïve. The optimal schedule of ERDA determined in the initial part of the study was 8 mg/d continuous ERDA in 28-d cycles with uptitration to 9 mg/d (ERD 8 mg UpT) if a protocol-defined target serum phosphate level was not reached and if no significant treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred. Primary end point was the confirmed objective response rate (ORR=% complete response + % partial response). Key secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS). Results: Median follow-up for 101 patients treated with ERDA 8 mg UpT was ~24 months. Confirmed ORR was 40%. Median DOR was 5.98 mos; 31% of responders had DOR ≥ 1 yr. Median PFS was 5.52 mos, median OS was 11.3 mos. 12-mos and 24-mos survival rates were 49% and 31%, respectively. Median treatment duration was 5.4 mos. The ERDA safety profile was consistent with the primary analysis. No new TRAEs were seen with longer follow-up. Central serous retinopathy (CSR) events occurred in 27% (27/101) of patients; 85% (23/27) were Grade 1 or 2; dosage was reduced in 13 pts, interrupted for 8, and discontinued for 3. On the data cut-off date, 63% (17/27) had resolved; 60% (6/10) of ongoing CSR events were Grade 1. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 2 yrs, ERDA in mUC + FGFR alt showed a manageable safety profile and consistent efficacy, with median OS of 11.3 mos. 31% had a DOR ≥12 mos and 31% were alive at 24 mos. ERDA monotherapy vs. immune checkpoint inhibitor (PD-1) or chemo is being further analyzed in a randomized control study (THOR; NCT03390504).Reference: Loriot Y, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:338-48. Clinical trial information: NCT02365597 .

411 Background: Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have improved outcomes in some pts with platinum-resistant mUC, many pts (eg, pts with TCGA luminal 1 tumors, many of whom are FGFRa) may not benefit. ERDA, a pan-FGFR (1-4) inhibitor, demonstrated promising phase 1 activity: 11 partial responses among 24 FGFRa mUC pts. We report efficacy and safety of ERDA in the ongoing global open-label phase 2 study BLC2001 (NCT02365597). Methods: Pts had measurable mUC with specific FGFR2/ FGFR3 mutations or translocations per central lab Janssen assay, ECOG 0-2, and were chemorefractory (progressed during/following ≥ 1 line of prior systemic chemo or ≤ 12 mos of [neo]adjuvant chemo). Cisplatin-ineligible, chemo-naïve pts, and prior ICI treatment were allowed. Pts were randomized 1:1 to 28-d cycles of oral 6 mg/d continuous dosing (6 C) or 10 mg/d intermittent 7 d on/7 d off dosing (10 I) ERDA; the dose was further uptitrated if no significant treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were observed. The primary end point was ORR. Results: 78 pts received 6 C and 33 pts received 10 I (10 I cohort stopped early) ERDA. 31 pts in 6 C arm were further uptitrated. Across arms, 50% had ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy; 93% were chemorefractory. Confirmed ORRs (RECIST 1.1) were 35% and 24%, and disease control rates (CR+PR+SD) were 74% and 73% in the 6 C and 10 I arms, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were manageable, and there were no treatment-related deaths (Table). Treatment is ongoing in 10 pts. Conclusions: ERDA (6 C or 10 I) has promising efficacy and tolerability in pts with FGFRa mUC. Based on these results and ERDA pharmacometric modeling, dosing was optimized at 8 mg/d (continuous), and this cohort is ongoing. Phase 3 study is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02365597. [Table: see text]

4507 Background: PROTECT (NCT01235962) evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib (PAZ) versus placebo in patients (pts) with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) post nephrectomy. Methods: 1538 pts with resected pT2 (high grade), pT3 or greater clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to PAZ or placebo for 1 year. The starting dose (800 mg) following treatment of 403 pts was lowered to 600 mg to improve tolerability and primary endpoint was changed to disease-free survival (DFS) with PAZ 600 (N = 1135). Primary analysis was performed after 350 DFS events in intent-to-treat (ITT) PAZ 600, and DFS follow-up analysis was performed after an additional 12 months. Secondary endpoints included DFS with ITT PAZ 800 and ITT ALL, and safety. Results: Disease characteristics were similar between arms. The primary analysis results of DFS ITT 600 were not significant [HR: 0.862; 95% CI, 0.699, 1.063; p = 0.165] (Table). The secondary endpoint of DFS in ITT PAZ 800 and ITT ALL yielded 31% and 20% risk reduction, respectively. Updated DFS analysis in ITT 600 showed a higher HR with longer follow up. Increased ALT and AST were the most common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the PAZ 600 (ALT 16% and AST 5%) and PAZ 800 (ALT 18% and AST 7%) groups. Conclusions: The study did not meet the primary DFS endpoint in ITT 600; however, a 31% decrease in the risk of recurrence was observed in ITT 800. The safety profiles in the 600 mg and 800 mg groups were similar and consistent with PAZ prior experience. Clinical trial information: NCT01235962. [Table: see text]

No abstract