throbber
T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine
`
`E d i t o r i a l s
`
`Renal-Cell Cancer — Targeting an Immune Checkpoint
`or Multiple Kinases
`David I. Quinn, M.B., B.S., Ph.D., and Primo N. Lara, Jr., M.D.
`
`Therapy for advanced renal-cell cancer has
`evolved considerably in the past decade, with
`new agents greeted like “buried treasure,” al-
`though these agents come with substantial costs
`to both patients and the health system. Before
`2005, the widely used systemic agents were cyto-
`kines — interferon alfa and interleukin-2, which
`yielded modest efficacy and substantial toxicity.
`Nevertheless, underlining the immunogenic
`nature of renal-cell cancer, durable complete
`responses occur in some patients who receive
`interleukin-2; these patients are mostly cured.1
`After 2005, angiogenesis and mammalian target
`of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway inhibitors dis-
`placed cytokine therapy.2,3 Although the most
`effective sequence of therapies is not known,
`most patients with advanced renal-cell cancer
`receive a vascular endothelial growth factor
`(VEGF)–receptor (VEGFR) kinase inhibitor up
`front; at disease progression, options include
`another type of angiogenesis-targeted therapy or
`“switching the mechanism of action” to an mTOR
`inhibitor (e.g., everolimus). For everolimus, the
`benchmark median progression-free survival is
`4.9 months and the median overall survival is
`14.8 months; these values are based on a place-
`bo-controlled trial involving patients whose dis-
`ease progressed during angiogenesis-targeted
`therapy.4 In previously treated patients, therapy
`with sorafenib (a VEGFR inhibitor) resulted in
`better overall survival than did therapy with
`temsirolimus (an mTOR inhibitor),5 whereas
`axitinib proved superior to sorafenib with regard
`to progression-free survival6 (Table 1).
`Two newer agents — nivolumab, an immuno-
`therapeutic agent that inhibits the T-cell check-
`point regulator programmed death 1 (PD-1),10,11
`and cabozantinib, a multikinase inhibitor tar-
`
`geting VEGFR, MET, RET, and AXL9,12 — now
`join the list of active therapies. In two trials now
`published in the Journal, patients whose disease
`progressed during VEGFR-targeted therapy were
`randomly assigned to receive the new agent or
`everolimus. In the nivolumab trial (CheckMate
`025),10 the primary end point was overall sur-
`vival; in the cabozantinib trial (METEOR),9 it
`was progression-free survival.
`The benefit from these agents, as compared
`with everolimus, is unequivocal. With nivolum-
`ab, there was a clinically relevant reduction in
`the risk of death (27%), a higher tumor response
`rate (25% vs. 5%), and a lower incidence of high-
`grade treatment-related adverse events (19% vs.
`37%). With cabozantinib, there was a 42% re-
`duction in the risk of progression or death, a
`higher response rate (21% vs. 5%), and a similar
`incidence of high-grade adverse events (68% vs.
`58%). These results — in particular, the data on
`overall survival from the nivolumab trial — es-
`tablish new efficacy benchmarks for this patient
`context (Table 1).
`Yet for all the success reported here, many
`questions remain. Complete remissions, the first
`step to a cure with “old-fashioned” immuno-
`therapy with interleukin-2, remained disappoint-
`ingly elusive in these studies. For cabozantinib,
`the rate was 0%; for patients with a partial tu-
`mor response, long-term durability of the re-
`sponse was rare. In the case of nivolumab, the
`complete remission rate was 1%. Although it is
`possible that complete remission with nivolum-
`ab may be unnecessary to achieve a long-term
`benefit, the lack of profound responses begs for
`selection or combination approaches that expand
`the benefit spectrum. The activity of nivolumab
`is somewhat analogous to that of interleukin-2,
`
`1872
`
`n engl j med 373;19 nejm.org November 5, 2015
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES on February 25, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
`
` Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1108-0001
`
`

`
`Editorials
`
`0.002
`
`(0.57–0.93)
`
`0.73
`
`0.005‡
`
`(0.51–0.89)
`
`0.67
`
`0.37
`
`(0.8–1.17)
`
`0.97
`
`0.01
`
`(1.05–1.63)
`
`1.31
`
`0.162
`
`(0.65–1.15)
`
`0.87
`
`25.0
`
`19.6
`
`NC
`
`NC
`
`20.1
`
`19.2
`
`12.3
`
`16.6
`
`14.8
`
`14.4
`
`mo
`
`0.11
`
`(0.75–1.03)
`
`0.88
`
`<0.001
`
`(0.45–0.75)
`
`0.58
`
`<0.0001
`
`(0.544–0.812)
`
`0.665
`
`0.19
`
`(0.71–1.07)
`
`0.87
`
`0.001
`
`(0.25–0.43)
`
`0.33
`
`4.6
`
`4.4
`
`7.4
`
`3.8
`
`6.7
`
`4.7
`
`4.3
`
`3.9
`
`4.9
`
`1.9
`
`mo
`
`25
`
`5
`
`21
`
`5
`
`19
`
`9
`
`8
`
`8
`
`1.8
`
`0
`
`%
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`1
`
`P Value
`
`Hazard Ratio
`
`(95% CI)
`
`Survival
`Median
`
`P Value
`
`Hazard Ratio
`
`(95% CI)
`
`Survival
`Median
`
`Overall Survival
`
`Progression-free Survival
`
`¶ Dose reduction was not permitted.
`§ Value reflects cases of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 toxic effects.
`‡ The result was nonsignificant at the time of analysis.
`† Value reflects all cases of grade 3 or 4 toxic effects.
`* CI denotes confidence interval, NC not calculated (end point not reached), and NR not reported.
`
`<1
`
`0
`
`0
`
`<1
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0.5
`
`8
`
`7
`
`0
`
`0.6
`
`8
`
`8
`
`1.4
`
`0
`
`19§
`
`37§
`
`68†
`
`58†
`
`NR
`
`NR
`
`62†
`
`61†
`
`NR
`
`NR
`
`%
`
`or DeathCompleteOverall
`Grade 5
`
`3 or 4
`Grade
`
`Response Rate
`
`Toxic Effects
`
`0¶
`
`26
`
`60
`
`25
`
`31
`
`52
`
`16
`
`33
`
`%
`
`1
`
`7
`
`Reduction
`
`Dose
`
`8
`
`13
`
`9
`
`10
`
`8
`
`4
`
`0
`
`2.8
`
`13
`
`1.4
`
`%
`
`Discontinuation
`
`for Adverse
`
`Events
`
`Nivolumab
`
`Everolimus
`
`CheckMate 02510
`
`Cabozantinib
`
`Everolimus
`
`METEOR9
`
`Axitinib
`
`Sorafenib
`
`AXIS6,8
`
`Temsirolimus
`
`Sorafenib
`
`INTORSECT5
`
`Everolimus
`
`Best supportive
`
`care
`
`RECORD-17
`
`Group
`Trial and Treatment
`
`n engl j med 373;19 nejm.org November 5, 2015
`
`1873
`
`Table 1. Comparison of End Points from Recent Phase 3 Trials Involving Previously Treated Advanced Renal-Cell Cancer.*
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES on February 25, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
`
` Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1108-0002
`
`

`
`T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine
`
`to which a fixed proportion of patients (20 to 25%)
`have a response. Patients who have a response
`may represent a prevalent “immune-responsive”
`subset of patients who benefit from either cyto-
`kines or checkpoint inhibitors. Actionable im-
`munologic drivers of renal-cell cancer response
`are not clear. In other tumors, PD-1 ligand 1
`(PD-L1) expression, in tumor cells or infiltrating
`immune cells, is associated with benefit from
`PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. Unfortunately, PD-L1
`expression in renal-cell cancer tissue did not
`delineate the patients who were more likely to
`benefit. Alternative immunologic signatures, such
`as the number of immunogenic mutations, may
`be associated with efficacy and survival, but they
`require prospective validation.13 In addition, the
`most effective duration of therapy with nivolum-
`ab and whether the therapy should continue
`beyond progression remains unknown. For cabo-
`zantinib, it is uncertain whether the inhibition
`of MET, RET, or AXL drives clinical activity or
`whether the benefit is simply due to a VEGFR-
`inhibitory effect.12
`What does the addition of nivolumab and
`cabozantinib to the therapeutic armamentarium
`for previously treated advanced renal-cell cancer
`mean for the practicing clinician? Given the
`overall survival advantage it confers and its rela-
`tively good side-effect profile, nivolumab is the
`choice for patients who have disease progression
`while they are receiving VEGF-targeted therapy
`(Table 1). Cabozantinib is a salvage treatment
`for patients whose tumors progress during VEGF
`therapy; however, without a significant overall
`survival benefit and with significant side effects
`necessitating dose reduction in 60% or more of
`patients, it will not precede nivolumab in the
`therapeutic sequence. Cabozantinib will compete
`with other VEGFR inhibitors as third-line or
`later therapy.5,6,8 Trials comparing cabozantinib
`with other VEGF-targeted therapies are much
`needed; a randomized phase 2 trial of sunitinib
`versus cabozantinib will provide this, albeit in the
`context of first-line therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov
`number, NCT01835158).
`Finally, there is the practical question of
`whether these new therapies provide sufficient
`value in resource-constrained health care envi-
`ronments. New cancer treatments are typically
`marketed at a price that most patients cannot
`afford without insurance. In the United States,
`federally funded programs cover approximately
`
`50% of patients with advanced renal-cell cancer.
`We are obligated to ensure that medicines pro-
`vide maximal therapeutic benefit with the fewest
`side effects and smallest fiscal burden. Currently,
`Medicare is unable to negotiate for the best
`terms across its entire patient base; this repre-
`sents a contrivance of free-market economics
`that is in no one’s best interest. Effective treat-
`ments will work only if they are accessible to the
`patients they are designed to help. Buried trea-
`sure and value must coexist.
`Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with
`the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
`
`From the University of Southern California Norris Comprehen-
`sive Cancer Center, Los Angeles (D.I.Q.), and the University of
`California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento
`(P.N.L.).
`
`This article was published on September 25, 2015, at NEJM.org.
`
`1. McDermott DF, Regan MM, Clark JI, et al. Randomized
`phase III trial of high-dose interleukin-2 versus subcutaneous
`interleukin-2 and interferon in patients with metastatic renal
`cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 133-41.
`2. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, et al. Sunitinib versus
`interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med
`2007; 356: 115-24.
`3. Hudes G, Carducci M, Tomczak P, et al. Temsirolimus, inter-
`feron alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J
`Med 2007; 356: 2271-81.
`4. Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Oudard S, et al. Efficacy of everoli-
`mus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a double-blind, ran-
`domised, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Lancet 2008; 372:
`449-56.
`5. Hutson TE, Escudier B, Esteban E, et al. Randomized phase
`III trial of temsirolimus versus sorafenib as second-line therapy
`after sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
`J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 760-7.
`6. Rini BI, Escudier B, Tomczak P, et al. Comparative effective-
`ness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcino-
`ma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011; 378: 1931-9.
`7. Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Oudard S, et al. Phase 3 trial of evero-
`limus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: final results and
`analysis of prognostic factors. Cancer 2010; 116: 4256-65.
`8. Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Tomczak P, et al. Axitinib versus
`sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carci-
`noma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a ran-
`domised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 552-62.
`9. Choueiri TK, Escudier B, Powles T, et al. Cabozantinib ver-
`sus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med
`2015;373:1814-23.
`10. Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF, et al. Nivolumab ver-
`sus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med
`2015;373:1803-13.
`11. Page DB, Postow MA, Callahan MK, Allison JP, Wolchok JD.
`Immune modulation in cancer with antibodies. Annu Rev Med
`2014; 65: 185-202.
`12. Zhou L, Liu XD, Sun M, et al. Targeting MET and AXL over-
`comes resistance to sunitinib therapy in renal cell carcinoma.
`Oncogene 2015.
`13. Brown SD, Warren RL, Gibb EA, et al. Neo-antigens pre-
`dicted by tumor genome meta-analysis correlate with increased
`patient survival. Genome Res 2014; 24: 743-50.
`DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1511252
`Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society.
`
`1874
`
`n engl j med 373;19 nejm.org November 5, 2015
`
`The New England Journal of Medicine
`
`Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES on February 25, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
`
` Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1108-0003

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket