During a Targeted Oncology™ Case-Based Roundtable™ event, Alan Tan, MD, discussed with participants their experiences with frontline regimens for advanced renal cell carcinoma, and potential trials that could optimize the use of immunotherapy and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. This is the second of 2 articles based on this event.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
YAN JI, MD: About the nivolumab [Opdivo] plus ipilimumab [Yervoy] regimen, I think everybody is looking at the tail [of the Kaplan-Meier overall survival curve] because…everybody is thinking that some patients probably get [complete remissions] by using dual immunotherapy. Although we realize that the response rate is low, 39%, and the duration of response is not as good as IO/TKI.1 I think it’s definitely [favored due to] the tail. In what kind of patient would you use ipilimumab/nivolumab? In my mind, the [optimal] patient does not have a large disease burden, and they have time to respond, so you still have time, if needed, to change the treatment, right?
ALAN TAN, MD: Exactly.
JI: So your [goal is] to give the patient a long-term benefit. That’s probably where my thoughts are in terms of using ipilimumab/nivolumab. Do you agree or do you have other patients you will also consider ipilimumab/nivolumab?
TAN: I, like many academic genitourinary oncologists, love ipilimumab/nivolumab because of that tail of the curve. We have a trial with the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology called the PDIGREE study [NCT03793166] that’s investigating that. So, if a patient has intermediate or poor risk, they would get ipilimumab/nivolumab up to 4 cycles and then based on an adaptive approach, if they have partial response or stable disease, they’ll get randomized to just nivolumab or nivolumab plus cabozantinib [Cabometyx]. We’re going to find out hopefully sometime in the next couple years the results of that study. I think that one might be a more valid sequence of events than triplet therapy. I’m not so sure I’m optimistic about triplet therapy based on COSMIC-313 [NCT03937219]. I think trying to get that ipilimumab in there because of that durable response and that possible “cure” is what we’re trying to look for.
I think I’ve [successfully treated] several patients with ipilimumab/nivolumab, but I can’t safely say that I’ve [had durable complete remission with] as many, or any, patients with IO/TKI. These patients [who needed IO/TKI] right off the bat are so symptomatic. Based on my experience, hypercalcemia is the one thing that sticks out. If you have uncontrolled hypercalcemia and a bad performance status or maybe pleural effusions, those are the scenarios where I need to get them on IO/TKI. Otherwise, they may die and none of these data mean anything because they don’t get to another line of therapy after 3 months. So that would be a real shame when we have such good progression-free survival [Kaplan-Meier] curves for all these regimens.
JI: Have you ever done [a trial] where a patients have a high disease burden, you gave them cabozantinib/nivolumab, and once the disease got under good control, changed to nivolumab/ipilimumab?
TAN: That is one of my ideas for a trial design I’m going to possibly pitch to Exelixis. Because, in my opinion, a reverse PDIGREE approach would be more fruitful. Get them on nivolumab/cabozantinib for a couple months, get their disease burden down, then before they progress, add in ipilimumab/nivolumab without the cabozantinib. No triplet, just nivolumab/ipilimumab up to 4 cycles, and then maybe do nivolumab maintenance or even nivolumab/cabozantinib maintenance. That kind of ‘sandwich’ approach makes more sense to me. I like your thinking there, Dr Ji.
GRACE SUH, MD: I echo the sentiments on the tolerability of the IO/TKI combination. That has been my go-to for first-line [therapy] for most patients who present with a large volume of disease. But the limitation has certainly been the adverse events [AEs] and the dosing.
TAN: Do you have any preference as far as an IO/TKI regimen and dose reduction? Is there something that is easier to dose reduce or dose adjust?
JOMEL LABAYOG, MD: I’ve been a user of axitinib [Inlyta] and pembrolizumab [Keytruda] because the data came out earlier on, and I’ve had [patients] continue on. Sometimes I’ve had to reduce their axitinib dose, but, unlike some of the other correspondents, I’ve had very limited toxicities with, and it’s per patient. It’s not as if I have a large cohort.
I have a question with ipilimumab and nivolumab. Everyone talks about 4 cycles, but is there any benefit to continue the ipilimumab beyond if the patient is tolerating it, to keep on going?
TAN: That is a good question. I always have wondered why only 4 cycles. In general, we think that the risk of grade 3/4 AEs is going to be much higher if the patient got more than 4 cycles. We think that an induction of 4 cycles of ipilimumab/nivolumab may help differentiate responders versus nonresponders. But there are trials in other tumor types where there is a more spread-out version of ipilimumab/nivolumab and you go for more cycles. I think that that should be considered as a study in the future.
JASON SUH, MD: If you look at the [NCCN guidelines], ipilimumab/nivolumab is not recommended for the favorable-risk group, right?2
TAN: It’s not approved, but I do consider it for select patients with favorable risk. There are some patients who can get complete responses, about 10% of patients.1 We don’t have a biomarker to pick out the ones whose disease is driven by inflammatory disease or angiogenesis. Most favorable-risk patients are probably driven by angiogenic [reasons]. There’s probably a subset that has immune-inflamed phenotype, and they can also respond to ipilimumab/nivolumab but I think we require more data for that.
References:
1. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(14):1277-1290. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1712126
2. NCCN. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Kidney cancer, version 4.2023. Accessed January 25, 2023. https://bit.ly/2TAx1m3
Triplets and Quadruplets Now Play Role in Transplant-Ineligible NDMM
October 2nd 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Andrzej Jakubowiak, MD, PhD, surveyed how newer regimens influence a patient case of a 79-year-old with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in the second article of a 2-part series.
Read More
Enhancing Precision in Immunotherapy: CD8 PET-Avidity in RCC
March 1st 2024In this episode of Emerging Experts, Peter Zang, MD, highlights research on baseline CD8 lymph node avidity with 89-Zr-crefmirlimab for the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and response to immunotherapy.
Listen
Five-Year Data Shows CheckMate 9LA Regimen Maintains Survival in NSCLC
September 24th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Ticiana Leal, MD, discusses combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and chemotherapy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer in the first article of a 2-part series.
Read More
Beyond the First-Line: Economides on Advancing Therapies in RCC
February 1st 2024In our 4th episode of Emerging Experts, Minas P. Economides, MD, unveils the challenges and opportunities for renal cell carcinoma treatment, focusing on the lack of therapies available in the second-line setting.
Listen
Efficacy of Cilta-Cel Is Maintained in Early Relapsed Multiple Myeloma
September 20th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Samer A. Al'Hadidi, MD, MS, discussed the CARTITUDE-4 trial of cilta-cel in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the first article of a 2-part series.
Read More
Promising Results from Phase 1/2 Trial of NKT2152 for Advanced Kidney Cancer
September 20th 2024NKT2152, a novel oral HIF-2α inhibitor, showed promising results in treating advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma, with an objective response rate of 20% in all-comers and 26.3% in the dose-escalation population.
Read More