Phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab + ipilimumab in treatment-naïve patients (pts) with advanced clear cell renal cell (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort A): Final report.
Authors: Atkins Michael B. , Jegede Opeyemi , Haas Naomi B. , McDermott David F. , Bilen Mehmet Asim , Stein Mark N. , Sosman Jeffrey Alan , Alter Robert S. , Plimack Elizabeth R. , Ornstein Moshe Chaim , Hurwitz Michael E. , Peace David J. , Signoretti Sabina , Denize Thomas , Cimadamore Alessia , Braun David A. , Wu Catherine J. , Einstein David Johnson , Catalano Paul J. , Hammers Hans J. 
Published: February 2022

288 Background: Nivolumab (nivo) is FDA approved for patients (pts) with VEGFR TKI-resistant RCC and the nivo + ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) combination is FDA approved for treatment naïve pts with IMDC intermediate and poor risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Little information was available on the efficacy and toxicity of nivo monotherapy in treatment naïve RCC or the efficacy of nivo/ipi salvage in pts with tumors resistant to initial nivo monotherapy. Methods: Eligible pts with treatment naïve RCC received nivo 240mg IV q2 wk x 6 doses followed by 360mg IV q3 wk x 4 doses followed by 480 mg q4 wk until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completion of 96 wks of treatment (Part A). Pts with PD prior to, or stable disease (SD) at 48 wks (pSD) were potentially eligible to receive salvage nivo (3mg/kg)/ipi (1 mg/kg) q3 wk x 4 doses followed by q4 wk nivo maintenance for up to 48 wks (Part B). All pts were required to submit tissue from a metastatic lesion obtained within 12 months (mos) prior to study entry and prior to Part B for correlative studies. Results: 123 pts with clear cell(cc) RCC were enrolled between 5/2017 and 12/2019 at 12 participating HCRN sites. Data lock was 04/07/2021. Median Follow-up 26.9 mos. Median age 65 (32-86) years; 72% male. IMDC risk: favorable (Fav) 35 (28%), intermediate (I) 76 (62%) and poor (P) 12 (10%). 22 (18%) had a component of sarcomatoid histology (SARC). RECIST defined ORR was: 34.1% (25.8-43.2%) (CR 6.5%, PR 27.6%), SD 47 (35.8%). ORR by irRECIST was 39%. ORR by IMDC was: Fav 20/35 (57.1%) (39-74%), (I/P) 22/88 (25%) and for SARC 36.4%. ORR by PD-L1 status was 21/78 (27%), 8/16 (50%) and 6/8 (75%) for pts with tumor PD-L1 of 0, 1-20 or > 20%, respectively (trend test p-value 0.002). 5/7 (71.4%) Fav pts with PD-L1 > 1 responded. Median DOR was 27.6 (13.7, NA) mos with 26/42 responders including 17/20 (85%) with Fav Risk remaining progression free. Median PFS was 8.2 (5.5, 10.9) mos; (30.3 for IMDC Fav and 5.4 for I/P). 91 pts remain alive with 24 mos OS rate of 78%. 65 patients (59 PD, 6 pSD) were potentially eligible for salvage nivo/ipi (Part B), but 25 did not enroll due to symptomatic PD (6), grade 3-4 toxicity on nivo (17), or other (2) and 5 were not treated due to inability to confirm residual disease on a biopsy. ORR for Part B by RECIST was 11.4% (4/35) and by irRECIST 17.2%. Grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs (TrAE) (not including asymptomatic amylase/lipase) were seen in 20.3% in Part A and 14.2% in Part B with 1 death in each cohort. Conclusions: Nivo monotherapy is active in treatment naïve ccRCC across all IMDC groups. Although efficacy appears less than combination nivo/ipi in I/P pts, Fav pts had a notably high ORR and DOR. Efficacy appeared to correlate with tumor PD-L1 status, although at least half the responders had a tumor PD-L1 of 0. Salvage treatment with nivo/ipi after nivo was frequently not feasible and of limited benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT03117309.