Clinical activity and molecular correlates of response to atezolizumab alone or in combination with bevacizumab versus sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma
We describe results from IMmotion150, a randomized phase 2 study of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone or combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) versus sunitinib in 305 patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-t...
Saved in:
Published in | Nature medicine Vol. 24; no. 6; pp. 749 - 757 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
New York
Nature Publishing Group US
01.06.2018
Nature Publishing Group |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | We describe results from IMmotion150, a randomized phase 2 study of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone or combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) versus sunitinib in 305 patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat and PD-L1+ populations. Intent-to-treat PFS hazard ratios for atezolizumab + bevacizumab or atezolizumab monotherapy versus sunitinib were 1.0 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69–1.45) and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.82–1.71), respectively; PD-L1+ PFS hazard ratios were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.38–1.08) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.63–1.67), respectively. Exploratory biomarker analyses indicated that tumor mutation and neoantigen burden were not associated with PFS. Angiogenesis, T-effector/IFN-γ response, and myeloid inflammatory gene expression signatures were strongly and differentially associated with PFS within and across the treatments. These molecular profiles suggest that prediction of outcomes with anti-VEGF and immunotherapy may be possible and offer mechanistic insights into how blocking VEGF may overcome resistance to immune checkpoint blockade.
An exploratory randomized controlled clinical trial of renal cell carcinoma identifies molecular patterns distinguishing responders to immune checkpoint blockade alone or combined with angiogenesis inhibitor versus angiogenesis inhibitor alone. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 ObjectType-News-3 content type line 23 D.F.M., M.B.A., R.J.M., B.I.R., B.E., and T.P. contributed to the conception, trial design, and data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; T.P. was the principal investigator of the study; M.A.H., S.J., and D.N. performed biomarker analyses and interpretation; J.Q. supervised the analysis of the clinical data; M.A.H. and P.S.H. supervised the analysis of biomarker data; L.F., R.W.J., S.K.P., J.A.R., M.S., J.H., W.K.R., W.M.S., T.H., M.E.G., A.R., S.B., C. Suarez, V.G., T.K.C., D.N., A.T., C. Schiff, E.P.-L., R.D., and G.D.F. made substantial contributions to the acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation; P.S.H., M.A.H., and D.S.C. had overall biomarker oversight; C. Schiff, G.D.F., and D.S.C. had overall medical oversight. Author contributions |
ISSN: | 1078-8956 1546-170X |
DOI: | 10.1038/s41591-018-0053-3 |