Blockade of PD-1 and TIM-3 immune checkpoints fails to restore the function of exhausted CD8+ T cells in early clinical stages of chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Blocking antibodies targeting immune checkpoint molecules achieved invaluable success in tumor therapy and amazing clinical responses in a variety of cancers. Although common treatment protocols have improved overall survival in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), they continue to relapse and progress. In the present in vitro study, the application of anti-PD-1 and anti-TIM-3 blocking antibodies was studied to restore the function of exhausted CD8⁺ T cells in CLL. CD8⁺ T cells were isolated from peripheral blood of 20 patients with CLL, treated with blocking antibodies, and cocultured with mitomycin-frozen non-CD8⁺ T cell fraction as target cells. Cultures were stimulated with anti-CD3/CD28 antibodies to assess the proliferation of CD8⁺ T cells by MTT and stimulated with PMA/ionomycin to measure the levels of CD107a expression and cytokine production by flow cytometry and ELISA, respectively. Our results showed that the blockade of PD-1 and TIM-3 does not improve the proliferation of CD8⁺ T cells in CLL patients. No significant difference was found between control and blocked groups in terms of degranulation properties and production of IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-2, and IL-10 by CD8⁺ T cells. We observed that pre-treatment of CD8⁺ T cells with blocking antibodies in CLL patients at early clinical stages had no effects on restoring their functional properties. Further in vitro and in vivo complementary studies are required to more explore the utility of checkpoint inhibitors for CLL patients.

Immunotherapy Is Changing First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma

The incidence of renal-cell carcinoma has been increasing each year, with nearly one third of new cases diagnosed at advanced or metastatic stage. The advent of targeted therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) has underscored the need to subtype tumors according to tumor-immune expression profiles that may more reliably predict treatment outcomes. Over the past 2 decades, several vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been the mainstay for first- and second-line treatment of mRCC. Very recently, immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors have significantly changed the treatment landscape for patients with mRCC, particularly for first-line treatment of intermediate to poor risk mRCC patients. Now, combination immunotherapy as well as combinations of immunotherapy with targeted agents can significantly alter disease outcomes. The field of immuno-oncology for mRCC has unveiled a deeper understanding of the immunoreactivity inherent to these tumors, and as a result combination therapy is evolving as a first-line modality. This review provides a timeline of advances and controversies in first-line treatment of mRCC, describes recent advances in understanding the immunoreactivity of these tumors, and addresses the future of combination anti-VEGF and immunotherapeutic platforms.

Renal cell carcinoma in one year: Going inside the news of 2017 - A report of the main advances in RCC cancer research

Very interesting issues regarding RCC treatment have been raised during 2017. We analysed the main news that may potentially modified clinical practice. Conflicting data came from trials testing targeted therapies in the adjuvant setting, supporting the necessity of further investigations. One of the key goals of RCC research is focused on the first-line therapy, with particular interest focus on immunotherapy combinations. Redefine the standard of care with the aim of improving patients' survival represents an imperative need. Enhancing immunotherapy antitumor activity by combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with anti-angiogenetic therapies is a noteworthy research field, with promising results. In addiction, we analysed in the metastatic setting data about the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy and the possibility of delay the start of first-line therapy after an active surveillance period. Based on recent developments, the paper outlines future prospective of RCC research.

Biomarkers of immunotherapy in urothelial and renal cell carcinoma: PD-L1, tumor mutational burden, and beyond

Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the PD-1 pathway have greatly changed clinical management of metastatic urothelial carcinoma and metastatic renal cell carcinoma. However, response rates are low, and biomarkers are needed to predict for treatment response. Immunohistochemical quantification of PD-L1 was developed as a promising biomarker in early clinical trials, but many shortcomings of the four different assays (different antibodies, disparate cellular populations, and different thresholds of positivity) have limited its clinical utility. Further limitations include the use of archival specimens to measure this dynamic biomarker. Indeed, until PD-L1 testing is standardized and can consistently predict treatment outcome, the currently available PD-L1 assays are not clinically useful in urothelial and renal cell carcinoma. Other more promising biomarkers include tumor mutational burden, profiles of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, molecular subtypes, and PD-L2. Potentially, a composite biomarker may be best but will need prospective testing to validate such a biomarker.

Axitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, nivolumab, sunitinib and best supportive care in previously treated renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of axitinib (Inlyta®, Pfizer Inc., NY, USA), cabozantinib (Cabometyx®, Ipsen, Slough, UK), everolimus (Afinitor®, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), nivolumab (Opdivo®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NY, USA), sunitinib (Sutent®, Pfizer, Inc., NY, USA) and best supportive care (BSC) for people with amRCC who were previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were objective response rates (ORRs), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January and June 2016 for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Two reviewers abstracted data and performed critical appraisals.

REVIEW METHODS

A fixed-effects MTC was conducted for OS, PFS [hazard ratios (HRs)] and ORR (odds ratios), and all were presented with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The RCT data formed the primary analyses, with non-RCTs and studies rated as being at a high risk of bias included in sensitivity analyses (SAs). HRQoL and AE data were summarised narratively. A partitioned survival model with health states for pre progression, post progression and death was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis. Survival curves were fitted to the PFS and OS results from the MTC. A systematic review of HRQoL was undertaken to identify sources of health state utility values.

RESULTS

Four RCTs (n = 2618) and eight non-RCTs (n = 1526) were included. The results show that cabozantinib has longer PFS than everolimus (HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.63) and both treatments are better than BSC. Both cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.82) and nivolumab (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.60 to 0.89) have longer OS than everolimus. SAs were consistent with the primary analyses. The economic analysis, using drug list prices, shows that everolimus may be more cost-effective than BSC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), as it is likely to be considered an end-of-life treatment. Cabozantinib has an ICER of £126,000 per QALY compared with everolimus and is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nivolumab was dominated by cabozantinib (i.e. more costly and less effective) and axitinib was dominated by everolimus.

LIMITATIONS

Treatment comparisons were limited by the small number of RCTs. However, the key limitation of the analysis is the absence of the drug prices paid by the NHS, which was a limitation that could not be avoided owing to the confidentiality of discounts given to the NHS.

CONCLUSIONS

The RCT evidence suggests that cabozantinib is likely to be the most effective for PFS and OS, closely followed by nivolumab. All treatments appear to delay disease progression and prolong survival compared with BSC, although the results are heterogeneous. The economic analysis shows that at list price everolimus could be recommended as the other drugs are much more expensive with insufficient incremental benefit. The applicability of these findings to the NHS is somewhat limited because existing confidential patient access schemes could not be used in the analysis. Future work using the discounted prices at which these drugs are provided to the NHS would better inform estimates of their relative cost-effectiveness.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042384.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of urological malignancies

Checkpoint inhibitors are monoclonal antibodies attach to several different receptors on T-cells or tumour cells expressing receptors for cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), programmed death-1 (PD-1) and their ligand (PD-L1). Since 2010, numerous trials on different tumour types have been conducted, which was resulted in these drugs being approved for the treatment of melanoma, lung cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma and head and neck cancers. Urological cancers, especially urothelial and renal-cell carcinomas, are immunogenic tumours. Since the late 70s, the bacillus Calmette-Gurin (BCG) vaccine has been used for intravesical instillation in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer from the mid-90s up until the discovery of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in 2007, interleukin-2 (IL-2) and interferon alpha (IFNα), which were the standard of care for metastatic renal-cell cancer. Two checkpoint inhibitors are already approved by the Food and Drug Administration: atezolizumab for metastatic urothelial cancer and nivolumab for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. There are many drugs are in different phases of clinical development. Here we review the current status of checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of urological tumours.

Immunotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Since the mid-2000s, the field of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has experienced a paradigm shift from non-specific therapy with broad-acting cytokines to specific regimens, which directly target the cancer, the tumour microenvironment, or both.Current guidelines recommend targeted therapies with agents such as sunitinib, pazopanib or temsirolimus (for people with poor prognosis) as the standard of care for first-line treatment of people with mRCC and mention non-specific cytokines as an alternative option for selected patients.In November 2015, nivolumab, a checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-1 (PD-1), was approved as the first specific immunotherapeutic agent as second-line therapy in previously treated mRCC patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunotherapies either alone or in combination with standard targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and their efficacy to maximize patient benefit.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science and registers of ongoing clinical trials in November 2016 without language restrictions. We scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with or without blinding involving people with mRCC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected and analyzed studies according to the published protocol. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE methodology and summarized the quality and magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each primary outcome in our 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight studies with 4732 eligible participants and an additional 13 ongoing studies. We categorized studies into comparisons, all against standard therapy accordingly as first-line (five comparisons) or second-line therapy (one comparison) for mRCC.Interferon (IFN)-α monotherapy probably increases one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapies with temsirolimus or sunitinib (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.51; 2 studies; 1166 participants; moderate-quality evidence), may lead to similar quality of life (QoL) (e.g. MD -5.58 points, 95% CI -7.25 to -3.91 for Functional Assessment of Cancer - General (FACT-G); 1 study; 730 participants; low-quality evidence) and may slightly increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) grade 3 or greater (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; 1 study; 408 participants; low-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between IFN-α plus temsirolimus and temsirolimus alone for one-year overall mortality (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.34; 1 study; 419 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of AEs of 3 or greater may be increased (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.45; 1 study; 416 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no information on QoL.IFN-α alone may slightly increase one-year overall mortality compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.36; 2 studies; 1381 participants; low-quality evidence). This effect is probably accompanied by a lower incidence of AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 2 studies; 1350 participants; moderate-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with IFN-α plus bevacizumab or standard targeted therapy (sunitinib) may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.08; 1 study; 83 participants; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.62; 1 study; 82 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with vaccines (e.g. MVA-5T4 or IMA901) or standard therapy may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.32; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.39; 2 studies; 1065 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.In previously treated patients, targeted immunotherapy (nivolumab) probably reduces one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapy with everolimus (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; 1 study; 821 participants; moderate-quality evidence), probably improves QoL (e.g. RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.78 for clinically relevant improvement of the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS); 1 study, 704 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and probably reduces the incidence of AEs grade 3 or greater (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.65; 1 study; 803 participants; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of moderate quality demonstrates that IFN-α monotherapy increases mortality compared to standard targeted therapies alone, whereas there is no difference if IFN is combined with standard targeted therapies. Evidence of low quality demonstrates that QoL is worse with IFN alone and that severe AEs are increased with IFN alone or in combination. There is low-quality evidence that IFN-α alone increases mortality but moderate-quality evidence on decreased AEs compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab. Low-quality evidence shows no difference for IFN-α plus bevacizumab compared to sunitinib with respect to mortality and severe AEs. Low-quality evidence demonstrates no difference of vaccine treatment compared to standard targeted therapies in mortality and AEs, whereas there is moderate-quality evidence that targeted immunotherapies reduce mortality and AEs and improve QoL.

Recent advances in genitourinary tumors: A review focused on biology and systemic treatment

Updated information published up to 2016 regarding major advances in renal cancer, bladder cancer, and prostate cancer is here presented. Based on an ever better understanding of the genetic and molecular alterations that govern the initial pathogenic mechanisms of tumor oncogenesis, an improvement in the characterization and treatment of urologic tumors has been achieved in the past year. According to the Cancer Genome Atlas (ATLAS) project, alterations in the MET pathway are characteristics of type 1 papillary renal cell carcinomas, and activation of NRF2-ARE pathway is associated with the biologically distinct type 2. While sunitinib and pazopanib continue to be the standard first-line treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma of clear cell histology, nivolumab and cabozantinib are now the agents of choice in the second-line setting. In relation to urothelial bladder carcinoma, new potential molecular targets such as FGFR3, PI3K/AKT, RTK/RAS, CDKN2A, ARIDIA, ERBB2 have been identified. Response to adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy appears to be related to basal, luminal, and p53-like intrinsic subtypes. A phase II study with eribulin and a maintenance phase II trial with vinflunine have shown promising results. Similarly, the use of the check point inhibitors in advanced disease is likely to revolutionize the management of patients who have progressed after cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In prostate cancer, seven mutually exclusive molecular subtypes have been identified by the TCGA project. Chemotherapy has been consolidated as a key treatment for castration-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer, and abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, and radium-223 remain standard therapeutic options for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. All this progress will undoubtedly contribute to the development of new treatments and therapeutic strategies that will improve the survival and quality of life of our patients.

Nivolumab in renal cell carcinoma: latest evidence and clinical potential

Similar to melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been historically considered as an immunogenic tumor, with interleukin 2 (IL-2) and interferon alpha (IFN-α) being the first approved treatments in the 1990s. However, these therapies were effective in only 10-20% of cases and were not well tolerated. Recently, new insights on the interaction between the immune system and tumor have identified the programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway to be a key player in evading host immune responses. The strategy of immune checkpoint blockade is to reduce inhibitory signaling and restore the patient's natural tumor-specific T-cell-mediated immune responses. Nivolumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor to have gained approval for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma, squamous and nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Hodgkin disease and recently RCC. In this review, we discuss results from studies of nivolumab in RCC, clinical experience with this agent, and its future development.

Nivolumab in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: clinical trial evidence and experience

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is considered an immunogenic tumor with a prominent dysfunctional immune cell infiltrate, unable to control tumor growth. Cytokine-based immunotherapies, including interferon-α and interleukin-2, have been used for the treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC). Long-term responses and complete remissions were observed, but durable clinical benefit efficacy in the overall population was limited and associated with significant toxicity. As a consequence, new generation agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways replaced interferon alpha (IFN-α). Strategies of tumor immune evasion include T-cell suppression by negative signals deriving from the interaction between programmed death-1 (PD-1) on the T cell and its ligand (PDL-1) on the tumor cells. Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 checkpoint inhibitor, blocks this pathway, thus reversing T-cell suppression and activating antitumor responses. The aim of this review is to summarize the safety and efficacy data of nivolumab in mRCC. Objective responses and safety profile of single-agent nivolumab are favorable in both previously treated and treatment-naïve mRCC patients. Despite toxic effects, combination therapies with nivolumab have shown promising results, indicating a potential role in the treatment of mRCC. Tailoring immunotherapy on a patient-to-patient basis represents a major challenge for the future.

Recent advances in the management of renal cell carcinoma

Therapeutic options for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma have significantly improved over the past few years with the recent approval of two new agents resulting in prolonged progression-free and overall survival.