Nivolumab monotherapy in recurrent metastatic urothelial carcinoma (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, two-stage, multi-arm, phase 1/2 trial
Padmanee Sharma, Margaret K Callahan, Petri Bono, Joseph Kim, Pavlina Spiliopoulou, Emiliano Calvo, Rathi N Pillai, Patrick A Ott, Filippo de Braud, Michael Morse, Dung T Le, Dirk Jaeger, Emily Chan, Chris Harbison, Chen-Sheng Lin, Marina Tschaika, Alex Azrilevich, Jonathan E Rosenberg, Padmanee Sharma, Margaret K Callahan, Petri Bono, Joseph Kim, Pavlina Spiliopoulou, Emiliano Calvo, Rathi N Pillai, Patrick A Ott, Filippo de Braud, Michael Morse, Dung T Le, Dirk Jaeger, Emily Chan, Chris Harbison, Chen-Sheng Lin, Marina Tschaika, Alex Azrilevich, Jonathan E Rosenberg
Abstract
Background: Few effective treatments exist for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma that has progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the activity and safety of nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy.
Methods: In this phase 1/2, multicentre, open-label study, we enrolled patients (age ≥18 years) with urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder, or urethra at 16 sites in Finland, Germany, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Patients were not selected by PD-L1 expression, but tumour PD-L1 membrane expression was assessed retrospectively. Patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression or treatment discontinuation because of unacceptable toxicity or other protocol-defined reasons, whichever occurred later. The primary endpoint was objective response by investigator assessment. All patients who received at least one dose of the study drug were included in the analyses. We report an interim analysis of this ongoing trial. CheckMate 032 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01928394.
Findings: Between June 5, 2014, and April 24, 2015, 86 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma were enrolled in the nivolumab monotherapy group and 78 received at least one dose of treatment. At data cutoff (March 24, 2016), the minimum follow-up was 9 months (median 15·2 months, IQR 12·9-16·8). A confirmed investigator-assessed objective response was achieved in 19 (24·4%, 95% CI 15·3-35·4) of 78 patients. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (22%) of 78 patients; the most common were elevated lipase (four [5%]), elevated amylase (three [4%]), and fatigue, maculopapular rash, dyspnoea, decreased lymphocyte count, and decreased neutrophil count (two [3%] each). Serious adverse events were reported in 36 (46%) of 78 patients and eight (10%) had a serious adverse event judged to be treatment related. Two (3%) of 78 patients discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (grade 4 pneumonitis and grade 4 thrombocytopenia) and subsequently died.
Interpretation: Nivolumab monotherapy was associated with a substantial and durable clinical response and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. These data support further investigation of nivolumab monotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma.
Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of interests
P Sharma reports receiving fees for advisory board participation for Jounce and Kite, fees for consultancy from Jounce, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), AstraZeneca, and Amgen, and stock/stock options with Jounce and Kite.
MKC reports receiving grants from BMS, consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Moderna, and payment for lectures from Clinical Care Options.
PB reports honoraria from BMS during the conduct of the study, honoraria from Pfizer, MSD, and Orion Pharma, and research funding from Novartis.
JK declares no competing interests.
P Spiliopoulou declares no competing interests.
E Calvo declares no competing interests.
RNP reports receiving a travel grant from BMS for an investigator meeting during the conduct of the study.
PAO reports receiving a grant from BMS and consultancy fees from BMS, Amgen, Celldex, Alexion, and Cytomx.
FdB reports receiving consultancy fees from Tiziana Life Sciences, BMS, MSD, Servier, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, and speaker fees from BMS, Eli Lilly, Roche, and ACCMED.
MM reports receiving consultancy fees from Etubics and Boehringer Ingelheim, and speaker fees from Genentech, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Lexicon, Ipsen, Onyx, Bayer, Taiho, Merrimack, and Celgene.
DTL declares no competing interests.
DJ reports being an employee of BMS.
E Chan reports receiving a grant from BMS for the conduct of the trial and consultancy fees for advisory board participation from EMD Serono, Taiho, Bayer, Advaxis, Amgen, Lilly, and Castle Biosciences.
CH reports being an employee of and holding stock options with BMS.
C-SL reports being an employee of and holding stock options with BMS.
MT reports being an employee of and holding stock options with BMS.
AA reports being an employee of BMS.
JER reports receiving a grant from BMS for the conduct of the study, consultancy fees from Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Agensys, Sanofi US Services, Oncogenex, Onyx, Dendreon, BMS, and Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Novartis and Roche/Genetech, and holding stock/stock options with Illumina and Merck.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Figures
![Figure 1. Patient enrolment and disposition](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5648054/bin/nihms901193f1.jpg)
![Figure 2. Change in tumour burden over…](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5648054/bin/nihms901193f2.jpg)
![Figure 3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5648054/bin/nihms901193f3.jpg)
![Figure 4](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5648054/bin/nihms901193f4.jpg)
References
- Logothetis CJ, Dexeus FH, Finn L, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing MVAC and CISCA chemotherapy for patients with metastatic urothelial tumors. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1050–5.
- von der Maase H, Hansen SW, Roberts JT, et al. Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: results of a large, randomized, multinational, multicenter, phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3068–77.
- Bellmunt J, von der Maase H, Mead GM, et al. Randomized phase III study comparing paclitaxel/cisplatin/gemcitabine and gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer without prior systemic therapy: EORTC Intergroup Study 30987. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1107–13.
- Dash A, Galsky MD, Vickers AJ, et al. Impact of renal impairment on eligibility for adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer. 2006;107:506–13.
- Bellmunt J, Fougeray R, Rosenberg JE, et al. Long-term survival results of a randomized phase III trial of vinflunine plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in advanced urothelial carcinoma patients after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1466–72.
- Babjuk M, Burger M, Zigeuner R, et al. EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2013. Eur Urol. 2013;64:639–53.
- Liakou CI, Kamat A, Tang DN, et al. CTLA-4 blockade increases IFNγ-producing CD4+ICOShi cells to shift the ratio of effector to regulatory T cells in cancer patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:14987–92.
- Carthon BC, Wolchok JD, Yuan J, et al. Preoperative CTLA-4 blockade: tolerability and immune monitoring in the setting of a presurgical clinical trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:2861–71.
- Faraj SF, Munari E, Guner G, et al. Assessment of tumoral PD-L1 expression and intratumoral CD8+ T cells in urothelial carcinoma. Urology. 2015;85:703–6.
- Inman BA, Sebo TJ, Frigola X, et al. PD-L1 (B7-H1) expression by urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and BCG-induced granulomata: associations with localized stage progression. Cancer. 2007;109:1499–505.
- Rosenberg JE, Hoffman-Censits J, Powles T, et al. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1909–20.
- Ansell SM, Lesokhin AM, Borrello I, et al. PD-1 blockade with nivolumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:311–9.
- Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1627–39.
- Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:123–35.
- Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF, et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1803–13.
- Overman MJ, Kopetz S, McDermott RS, et al. Nivolumab ± ipilimumab in treatment (tx) of patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with and without high microsatellite instability (MSI-H): CheckMate-142 interim results. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(15 suppl) Abstract 3501.
- Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:320–30.
- Gillison ML, Blumenschein G, Jr, Fayette J, et al. Nivolumab (nivo) vs investigator’s choice (IC) for recurrent or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC): CheckMate-141. Presented at: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting; April 16–20, 2016; New Orleans, LA, USA. (Abstract CT099)
- Antonia SJ, López-Martin JA, Bendell J, et al. Nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in recurrent small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:883–95.
- Le DT, Bendell JC, Calvo E, et al. Safety and activity of nivolumab monotherapy in advanced and metastatic (A/M) gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEC): Results from the CheckMate-032 study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(4 suppl) Abstract 6.
- Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1. 1) Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.
- Atkinson EN, Brown BW. Confidence limits for probability of response in multistage phase II clinical trials. Biometrics. 1985;41:741–4.
- Brookmeyer R, Crowley J. A confidence interval for the median survival time. Biometrics. 1982;38:29–41.
- Clopper CJ, Pearson ES. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika. 1934;26:404–13.
- Choueiri TK, Ross RW, Jacobus S, et al. Double-blind, randomized trial of docetaxel plus vandetanib versus docetaxel plus placebo in platinum-pretreated metastatic urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:507–12.
- Bambury RM, Benjamin DJ, Chaim JL, et al. The safety and efficacy of single-agent pemetrexed in platinum-resistant advanced urothelial carcinoma: a large single-institution experience. Oncologist. 2015;20:508–15.
- Hainsworth JD, Meluch AA, Litchy S, et al. Paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine in the treatment of patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium. Cancer. 2005;103:2298–303.
- Sharma P, Allison JP. Immune checkpoint targeting in cancer therapy: toward combination strategies with curative potential. Cell. 2015;161:205–14.
- Sharma P, Allison JP. The future of immune checkpoint therapy. Science. 2015;348:56–61.
Source: PubMed