Search
Close
Search
Advanced Search
Search Menu
AI Discovery Assistant

Abstract

Lessons Learned

  • HyperAcute Renal immunotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated antitumor activity in patients requiring salvage‐line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

  • HyperAcute Renal immunotherapy was safely administered with concomitant salvage‐line treatments for mRCC, and it may be a candidate for inclusion in novel combinations for salvage treatment of mRCC because of its unique mechanism of action.

Background

HyperAcute Renal (HAR) immunotherapy exploits a naturally occurring barrier to xenotransplantation and zoonotic infections in humans to immunize patients against metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) cells. HAR consists of two allogeneic renal cancer cell lines genetically modified to express α(1,3)Gal, to which humans have an inherent pre‐existing immunity.

Methods

Patients with refractory mRCC were eligible for this phase I dose‐escalation trial. Concomitant treatment was permitted after the initial 2 months of HAR monotherapy. HAR was injected intradermally weekly for 4 weeks then biweekly for 20 weeks, totaling 14 immunizations. The primary endpoint was safety and determination of a maximum tolerated dose (MTD).

Results

Among 18 patients enrolled, two grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were attributed to HAR, lymphopenia and injection site reaction, and no grade 4/5 AEs occurred. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was 300 million cells. One patient had a partial response and eight patients had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 50% (9/18). Median overall survival with low‐dose HAR was 14.2 months and was 25.3 months with high‐dose HAR.

Conclusion

In pretreated mRCC, HAR immunotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated antitumor activity. HAR immunotherapy may be a candidate for inclusion in novel combinations for salvage treatment of mRCC.

Subject
Genitourinary Cancer
Issue Section:
Clinical Trial Results

Discussion

The treatment landscape for mRCC is changing quickly, and combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors and/or angiogenesis‐targeted treatments are now being used as first‐line treatment for mRCC. As these drugs move to the first‐line setting, there is growing need for salvage‐line mRCC treatments with novel mechanisms of action. HAR is a novel immunotherapy that consists of two allogeneic renal cancer cell lines genetically engineered to produce α‐galactosyl epitopes (αGal). Humans do not produce αGal yet have antibodies against it, and these antibodies are the basis for hyperacute‐driven rejection of tumors. To date, HyperAcute immunotherapy has been studied in pancreatic cancer, castration‐refractory prostate cancer, non‐small cell lung cancer, and melanoma. Herein, we report the first study of HAR immunotherapy in patients with mRCC.

In this phase I study, 18 patients with recurrent or refractory mRCC and a clear cell component received weekly intradermal injections of HAR for 4 weeks followed by biweekly injections for 20 weeks. Concomitant treatment with other approved agents was permitted after the initial 2 months of HAR monotherapy. The primary endpoint was safety and determination of MTD. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and progression‐free survival (PFS). The RP2D was set at 300 million cells intradermally without dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT). The most common AEs attributed to HAR were injection site reactions (100%), fatigue (16.7%), and lymphopenia (16.7%). The majority of these events were grade 1 or 2. Two grade 3 AEs attributed to HAR were reported, lymphopenia and injection site pain. The ORR was 5.6%, with one patient having a partial response (PR) to treatment, and the disease control rate was 50% (9/18; Fig. 1). Median PFS was 2.1 months (range 1.6–23.6 months) in all patients. Median overall survival (OS) was 14.2 months with low‐dose HAR (range 3.6–21.6 months) and was 25.3 months with high‐dose HAR (range 5.8–29.3 months).

HAR immunotherapy response duration by individual patient.
Figure 1

HAR immunotherapy response duration by individual patient.

Abbreviation: HAR, HyperAcute Renal.

Open in new tabDownload slide

In this study, HAR immunotherapy appears safe and well tolerated in patients with mRCC, and as anticipated, the most common AEs were local injection site reactions. Although this trial was designed to assess the safety of HAR immunotherapy, we also report underpowered efficacy findings. One patient has experienced a durable PR that is ongoing at the time of data cutoff, and another eight patients had stable disease with HAR immunotherapy. Although the median PFS for HAR immunotherapy was short at 2.1 months, this was expected based on HAR's immunologic mechanism of action. Additionally, median OS was 25.3 months in the 14 patients who received high‐dose HAR immunotherapy, which is similar to contemporary salvage‐line therapy for mRCC. These findings suggest that HAR immunotherapy may be a candidate for inclusion in further investigations of novel combinations for salvage treatment of mRCC.

Trial Information

     
  • Disease

    Renal cell carcinoma – clear cell

    •  
  • Stage of Disease/Treatment

    Metastatic/advanced

    •  
  • Prior Therapy

    1 prior regimen

    •  
  • Type of Study – 1

    Phase I

    •  
  • Type of Study – 2

    3+3

    •  
  • Primary Endpoint

    Safety

    •  
  • Primary Endpoint

    Maximum tolerated dose

    •  
  • Secondary Endpoint

    Efficacy

    •  
  • Additional Details of Endpoints or Study Design

     

    •  
  • Dose cohorts will initially consist of three eligible patients each and will be expanded to six patients if a DLT is seen. If MTD is not reached in dose cohort 2, 300 million cells will be declared the RP2D and the cohort will be expanded to enroll a total of 14 patients at that dose level.

     

    •  
  • Investigator's Analysis

    Drug tolerable, hints of efficacy

Drug Information

     
  • Drug 1

     

    •  
  •  Generic/Working Name

    Alpha‐1,3‐galactosyltransferase‐expressing allogeneic renal cell carcinoma immunotherapy

    •  
  •  Trade Name

    HyperAcute Renal immunotherapy

    •  
  •  Company Name

    NewLink Genetics Corporation

    •  
  •  Drug Type

    Vaccine

    •  
  •  Drug Class

    Immune therapy

    •  
  •  Dose

    300,000,000 units (U) per flat dose

    •  
  •  Route

    Intradermal injection

    •  
  •  Schedule of Administration

    Weekly for 4 weeks followed by biweekly for 10 weeks

Dose Escalation Table

Open in new tab
Dose levelDose of drug: Alpha‐1,3‐galactosyltransferase‐expressing allogeneic renal cell carcinoma immunotherapyNo. enrolledNo. evaluable for toxicity
1150,000,000 cells44
2300,000,000 cells1414
Dose levelDose of drug: Alpha‐1,3‐galactosyltransferase‐expressing allogeneic renal cell carcinoma immunotherapyNo. enrolledNo. evaluable for toxicity
1150,000,000 cells44
2300,000,000 cells1414

Patient Characteristics

     
  • Number of Patients, Male

    14

    •  
  • Number of Patients, Female

    4

    •  
  • Age

    Median (range): 63 (44–78)

    •  
  • Number of Prior Systemic Therapies

    Median (range): 1 (0–4)

Primary Assessment Method

     
  • Title

    New assessment

    •  
  • Number of Patients Enrolled

    18

    •  
  • Number of Patients Evaluable for Toxicity

    18

    •  
  • Number of Patients Evaluated for Efficacy

    18

    •  
  • Evaluation Method

    RECIST 1.1

    •  
  • Response Assessment CR

    n = 0 (0%)

    •  
  • Response Assessment PR

    n = 1 (6%)

    •  
  • Response Assessment SD

    n = 8 (44%)

    •  
  • Response Assessment PD

    n = 9 (50%)

    •  
  • Response Assessment OTHER

    n = 0 (0%)

    •  
  • (Median) Duration Assessments PFS

    2.1 months

    •  
  • (Median) Duration Assessments OS

    14.2

    •  
  • Outcome Notes

    Median PFS was 2.1 months (range 1.6–23.6 months) in all patients. Median OS was 14.2 months with low‐dose HAR (range 3.6–21.6 months) and was 25.3 months with high‐dose HAR (range 5.8–29.3 months).

graphic

Adverse Events

Open in new tab
Adverse event by SOC/PTGrade 1, n (%)Grade 2, n (%)Grade 3, n (%)Grade 4, n (%)All grades, n (%)
Hematologic2 (11)2 (11)1 (6)0 (0)4 (22)
Anemia0 (0)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Leukopenia1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Lymphopenia1 (6)1 (6)1 (6)0 (0)3 (17)
General16 (89)4 (22)1 (6)0 (0)18 (100)
Fatigue2 (11)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)3 (17)
Induration2 (11)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)2 (11)
Injection site bruising6 (33)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)6 (33)
Injection site erythema15 (83)2 (11)0 (0)0 (0)17 (94)
Injection site extravasation1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Injection site induration10 (56)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)10 (56)
Injection site irritation2 (11)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)2 (11)
Injection site edema1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Injection site pain10 (56)2 (11)1 (6)0 (0)13 (72)
Injection site pruritus14 (78)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)15 (83)
Injection site reaction2 (11)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)2 (11)
Injection site scab2 (11)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)2 (11)
Injection site swelling11 (61)3 (17)0 (0)0 (0)14 (78)
Injection site warmth6 (33)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)7 (39)
Pain4 (22)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)4 (22)
Nervous system1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Headache1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Skin3 (17)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)3 (17)
Blister1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Pruritus1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Rash1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Urticaria1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Vascular0 (0)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Hypotension0 (0)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Total17 (94)7 (39)2 (11)0 (0)18 (100)
Adverse event by SOC/PTGrade 1, n (%)Grade 2, n (%)Grade 3, n (%)Grade 4, n (%)All grades, n (%)
Hematologic2 (11)2 (11)1 (6)0 (0)4 (22)
Anemia0 (0)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Leukopenia1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Lymphopenia1 (6)1 (6)1 (6)0 (0)3 (17)
General16 (89)4 (22)1 (6)0 (0)18 (100)
Fatigue2 (11)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)3 (17)
Induration2 (11)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)2 (11)
Injection site bruising6 (33)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)6 (33)
Injection site erythema15 (83)2 (11)0 (0)0 (0)17 (94)
Injection site extravasation1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Injection site induration10 (56)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)10 (56)
Injection site irritation2 (11)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)2 (11)
Injection site edema1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Injection site pain10 (56)2 (11)1 (6)0 (0)13 (72)
Injection site pruritus14 (78)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)15 (83)
Injection site reaction2 (11)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)2 (11)
Injection site scab2 (11)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)2 (11)
Injection site swelling11 (61)3 (17)0 (0)0 (0)14 (78)
Injection site warmth6 (33)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)7 (39)
Pain4 (22)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)4 (22)
Nervous system1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Headache1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Skin3 (17)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)3 (17)
Blister1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Pruritus1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Rash1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Urticaria1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Vascular0 (0)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Hypotension0 (0)1 (6)0 (0)0 (0)1 (6)
Total17 (94)7 (39)2 (11)0 (0)18 (100)

Treatment‐emergent adverse events attributed to HyperAcute Renal.

If a subject experienced more than one event within a given SOC, that subject was counted once for that SOC. If a subject experienced more than one event within a given PT, that subject was counted only once for that PT. The most severe event is counted.

Abbreviations: PT, preferred term; SOC, system organ class.

Assessment, Analysis, and Discussion

     
  • Completion

    Study completed

    •  
  • Investigator's Assessment

    Drug tolerable, hints of efficacy

Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and/or angiogenesis‐targeted treatments are now used as first‐line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) [1–3]. There is a growing need for salvage‐line mRCC treatments with novel mechanisms of action. mRCC is considered an immunogenic tumor based on its history of spontaneous regressions of metastases to localized therapy, responses to high‐dose interleukin‐2, and the recent success of ICIs [4, 5]. Thus, novel immunotherapies are of special interest for patients with mRCC.

HyperAcute Renal (HAR) exploits a natural barrier to xenotransplantation in humans in an attempt to immunize patients against their own mRCC cells. HAR immunotherapy consists of two allogeneic renal cancer cell lines that have been genetically engineered by retrovirus transduction to express the murine enzyme α(1,3)‐galactosyltransferase (αGT), which produces α‐galactosyl epitopes (αGal). αGal is expressed on most mammalian cells, except for humans and Old World monkeys, and αGal epitopes are the basis for hyperacute‐driven rejection of tumors [6]. In humans, intestinal bacterial flora stimulate the production of antibodies against αGal epitopes [7]. When these naturally acquired antibodies bind to αGal, it results in activation of complement via the classical pathway and induces antibody‐dependent cell‐mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) via natural killer cells [8–11]. αGal HyperAcute technology has been demonstrated to induce anticancer activity and has been previously studied in pancreatic cancer, castration‐refractory prostate cancer, non‐small cell lung cancer, and melanoma [12–14]. Herein, we report the first study of HAR immunotherapy in patients with mRCC.

In this multi‐institution phase I study, 18 patients with recurrent or refractory mRCC and a clear cell component received weekly intradermal injections of HAR for 4 weeks followed by biweekly injections for 10 weeks. Following institutional review board approval at each institution, all patients provided informed consent. The first four patients received the starting dose of 150 million cells, and then 14 patients received the escalated dose of 300 million cells. Concomitant treatment with other approved agents was permitted after the initial 2 months of HAR monotherapy. The primary endpoint was safety and determination of a maximum tolerated dose. Secondary endpoints are objective response rate (ORR) and progression‐free survival (PFS).

The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was set at 300 million cells intradermally with no dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT). The most common adverse events (AEs) attributed to HAR were injection site reactions (100%), fatigue (16.7%), and lymphopenia (16.7%; supplemental online Table 1). The majority of these events were grade 1 or 2. Two grade 3 AEs attributed to HAR were reported, lymphopenia and injection site pain. No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were study related. At data cutoff in September of 2018, seven patients (39%) remained alive. The ORR was 5.6%, with one patient having a partial response (PR) to treatment, and the disease control rate was 50% (9/18; Fig. 1). Median PFS was 2.1 months (range 1.6–23.6 months) in all patients. Median overall survival (OS) was 14.2 months with low‐dose HAR (range 3.6–21.6 months) and was 25.3 months with high‐dose HAR (range 5.8–29.3 months). Thirteen patients (72%) received concomitant treatment after 2 months of HAR immunotherapy. The accompanying treatments included nivolumab (12 patients, 67%), cabozantinib (1 patient, 5.6%), and sunitinib (1 patient, 5.6%; Table 1).

In this study, HAR immunotherapy appears safe and well tolerated in patients with mRCC, as the RP2D was reached without any DLTs. As anticipated, the most common AEs were local injection site reactions. In this salvage therapy cohort of patients with mRCC, HAR immunotherapy demonstrated antitumor activity. One patient has experienced a durable PR that is ongoing at the time of data cutoff, and another eight patients had stable disease with HAR immunotherapy. These findings suggest that HAR immunotherapy can be safely combined with other salvage‐line treatments and is worthy of further study in mRCC.

Contemporary salvage‐line treatment for mRCC includes angiogenesis‐targeted treatments (such as cabozantinib, lenvatinib plus everolimus, or axitinib) and the ICI nivolumab [15–17]. However, all of these salvage treatments are now used in the first‐line setting, as combination therapy becomes the new standard of care. The development of first‐line combination therapy has resulted in a pressing need for novel therapeutic classes in salvage‐line treatment of mRCC. HAR immunotherapy is a novel immunotherapy for mRCC that exploits a natural barrier to xenotransplantation and appears safe to combine with pre‐existing salvage treatments. Although this clinical trial was designed to assess the safety of HAR immunotherapy, we also report underpowered efficacy findings. The median PFS for HAR immunotherapy was short at 2.1 months; however, no effect on PFS was expected based on HAR's immunologic mechanism of action. In the 14 patients who received high‐dose HAR immunotherapy, median OS was 25.3 months, which is similar to nivolumab in CheckMate 025 (25.0 months) [16]. Because patients received concomitant systemic therapies, it is difficult to elucidate the efficacy of HAR immunotherapy independently of these concomitant therapies. However, this study did establish acceptable safety and feasibility of combining HAR immunotherapy with other approved systemic therapies in mRCC. To accurately assess efficacy, a much larger cohort of patients with mRCC will be needed.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint by demonstrating safety in patients with mRCC, we would consider changing the administration of concomitant therapies if we were to repeat the trial. Per the trial protocol, investigators could administer a concomitant treatment after an initial 2 months of HAR monotherapy. The delay in giving concomitant treatment was necessary to establish the safety of HAR immunotherapy in these patients; however, it could have compromised the synergistic efficacy of HAR immunotherapy and concomitant systemic therapy, such as nivolumab. We hypothesize that HAR immunotherapy and nivolumab could have a synergistic stimulatory effect on the immune system's response to tumor cells. When nivolumab binds to programmed cell death protein 1 in vitro, it potently enhances T‐cell activation and cytokine production, but it does not result in ADCC or complement‐dependent cytotoxicity [18, 19]. In contrast, HAR immunotherapy activates complement and mediates ADCC. Theoretically, closer administration of nivolumab and HAR immunotherapy could result in improved efficacy through simultaneous engagement of multiple arms of the immune system.

In pretreated mRCC, HAR immunotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated preliminary evidence of clinical activity. Because of its unique mechanism, HAR immunotherapy may be a candidate for inclusion in novel combinations for salvage treatment of mRCC.

Disclosures

Charles Drake: Compugen, ImmunExcite, NexImmune, Potenza Therapeutics, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc. (OI), Agenus, Astellas Medivation, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol‐Myers Squibb (Inst), Compugen, Dendreon, ImmuneXcite, Janssen Oncology, Eli Lilly, Merck, NexImmune, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Potenza Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc. (C/A), Aduro Biotech (Inst), Bristol‐Myers Squibb (Inst), Compugen (Inst), Janssen Oncology (Inst) (RF), Patents licensed to BMS (Inst), Patents licensed to Potenza Therapeutics (Inst) (IP); Samuel R. Denmeade: Sophiris Bio (C/A, IP); Yousef Zakharia: Amgen, Roche Diagnostics, Novartis, Jansen, Eisai, Exelixis, Castle Bioscience, Array, Bayer, Pfizer (C/A), NewLink Genetics, Pfizer, Exelixis, Eisai (RF); Benjamin L. Maughan: Bayer, Janssen Oncology, Tempus, Astellas, Exelixis, Bristol‐Meyers Squibb, Peloton Therapeutics (C/A), Bristol‐Meyers Squibb, Clovis (RF, institutional); Eugene Kennedy: CSL Limited, Newlink Genetics (E), Newlink Genetics (OI); Charles J. Link: Newlink Genetics Corporation (E, IP); Nicholas Vahanian: Newlink Genetics (E, OI); Hans Hammers: Bristol‐Meyers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer (C/A), Bristol‐Meyers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Exelixis, Pfizer, Armo Biosciences (RF); Neeraj Agarwal: Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Argos, BMS, Bayer, Clovis, Eisai, Exelixis, EMD Serono, Ely Lilly, Foundation One, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Medivation, Novartis, Nektar, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics (C/A), AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Calithera, Celldex, Eisai, Exelixis, Genetech, GlaxoSmithKline), Immunomedics, Janssen, Medivation, Merck, New Link Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus, Rexahn, Sanofi, Takeda, Tracon, Bayer, Clovis, EMD Serono, Ely Lilly, Janssen, Nektar (RF, institutional). Andrew W. Hahn indicated no financial relationships.

(C/A) Consulting/advisory relationship; (RF) Research funding; (E) Employment; (ET) Expert testimony; (H) Honoraria received; (OI) Ownership interests; (IP) Intellectual property rights/inventor/patent holder; (SAB) Scientific advisory board

Table

Table 1
Open in new tab

Prior lines of treatment, concomitant therapy administered with HAR immunotherapy, and best response by patient

Patient no.Best responsePrior lines of treatmentDose of HAR, cells in millionsConcomitant treatment
1SD4150None
2PD2150None
3SD1150None
4SD1150Nivolumab
5SD1300Nivolumab
6PD2300Nivolumab
7SD0a300Nivolumab
8PD2300Nivolumab
9PD1300Nivolumab
10SD1300None
11SD1300Nivolumab
12PD4300Nivolumab
13PD4300Nivolumab; cabozantinib
14PD1300Sunitinib
15SD1300None
16PD3300Nivolumab
17PD1300Nivolumab
18PR0a300Nivolumab
Patient no.Best responsePrior lines of treatmentDose of HAR, cells in millionsConcomitant treatment
1SD4150None
2PD2150None
3SD1150None
4SD1150Nivolumab
5SD1300Nivolumab
6PD2300Nivolumab
7SD0a300Nivolumab
8PD2300Nivolumab
9PD1300Nivolumab
10SD1300None
11SD1300Nivolumab
12PD4300Nivolumab
13PD4300Nivolumab; cabozantinib
14PD1300Sunitinib
15SD1300None
16PD3300Nivolumab
17PD1300Nivolumab
18PR0a300Nivolumab

aPatient had nephrectomy prior to the study.

Abbreviations: HAR, HyperAcute Renal; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.

Table 1
Open in new tab

Prior lines of treatment, concomitant therapy administered with HAR immunotherapy, and best response by patient

Patient no.Best responsePrior lines of treatmentDose of HAR, cells in millionsConcomitant treatment
1SD4150None
2PD2150None
3SD1150None
4SD1150Nivolumab
5SD1300Nivolumab
6PD2300Nivolumab
7SD0a300Nivolumab
8PD2300Nivolumab
9PD1300Nivolumab
10SD1300None
11SD1300Nivolumab
12PD4300Nivolumab
13PD4300Nivolumab; cabozantinib
14PD1300Sunitinib
15SD1300None
16PD3300Nivolumab
17PD1300Nivolumab
18PR0a300Nivolumab
Patient no.Best responsePrior lines of treatmentDose of HAR, cells in millionsConcomitant treatment
1SD4150None
2PD2150None
3SD1150None
4SD1150Nivolumab
5SD1300Nivolumab
6PD2300Nivolumab
7SD0a300Nivolumab
8PD2300Nivolumab
9PD1300Nivolumab
10SD1300None
11SD1300Nivolumab
12PD4300Nivolumab
13PD4300Nivolumab; cabozantinib
14PD1300Sunitinib
15SD1300None
16PD3300Nivolumab
17PD1300Nivolumab
18PR0a300Nivolumab

aPatient had nephrectomy prior to the study.

Abbreviations: HAR, HyperAcute Renal; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.

References

1

Motzer
 
RJ
,
Tannir
 
NM
,
McDermott
 
DF
 et al.
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal‐cell carcinoma
.
N Engl J Med
 
2018
;
378
:
1277
–
1290
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
2

Motzer
 
RJ
,
Penkov
 
K
,
Haanen
 
J
 et al.
Avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal‐cell carcinoma
.
N Engl J Med
 
2019
;
380
:
1103
–
1115
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
3

Rini
 
BI
,
Plimack
 
ER
,
Stus
 
V
 et al.
Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal‐cell carcinoma
.
N Engl J Med
 
2019
;
380
:
1116
–
1127
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
4

Rosenberg
 
SA
,
Lotze
 
MT
,
Muul
 
LM
 et al.
A progress report on the treatment of 157 patients with advanced cancer using lymphokine‐activated killer cells and interleukin‐2 or high‐dose interleukin‐2 alone
.
N Engl J Med
 
1987
;
316
:
889
–
897
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
5

Van de Walle
 
M
,
Demol
 
J
,
Staelens
 
L
 et al.
Abscopal effect in metastatic renal cell carcinoma
.
Acta Clin Belg
 
2017
;
72
:
245
–
249
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
6

Joziasse
 
DH
,
Oriol
 
R
.
Xenotransplantation: The importance of the Galalpha1,3Gal epitope in hyperacute vascular rejection
.
Biochim Biophys Acta
 
1999
;
1455
:
403
–
418
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
7

Galili
 
U
,
Mandrell
 
RE
,
Hamadeh
 
RM
 et al.
Interaction between human natural anti‐alpha‐galactosyl immunoglobulin G and bacteria of the human flora
.
Infect Immun
 
1988
;
56
:
1730
–
1737
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
8

Baumann
 
BC
,
Forte
 
P
,
Hawley
 
RJ
 et al.
Lack of galactose‐alpha‐1,3‐galactose expression on porcine endothelial cells prevents complement‐induced lysis but not direct xenogeneic NK cytotoxicity
.
J Immunol
 
2004
;
172
:
6460
–
6467
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
9

Schaapherder
 
AF
,
Daha
 
MR
,
te Bulte
 
MT
 et al.
Antibody‐dependent cell‐mediated cytotoxicity against porcine endothelium induced by a majority of human sera
.
Transplantation
 
1994
;
57
:
1376
–
1382
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
10

Rossi
 
GR
,
Mautino
 
MR
,
Unfer
 
RC
 et al.
Effective treatment of preexisting melanoma with whole cell vaccines expressing α(1,3)‐galactosyl epitopes
.
Cancer Res
 
2005
;
65
:
10555
–
10561
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
11

Rossi
 
GR
,
Mautino
 
MR
,
Awwad
 
DZ
 et al.
Allogeneic melanoma vaccine expressing αGal epitopes induces antitumor immunity to autologous antigens in mice without signs of toxicity
.
J Immunother
 
2008
;
31
:
545
–
554
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
12

Hardacre
 
JM
,
Mulcahy
 
M
,
Small
 
W
 et al.
Addition of algenpantucel‐L immunotherapy to standard adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: A phase 2 study
.
J Gastrointest Surg
 
2013
;
17
:
94
–
100
; discussion p. 100–101.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
13

Hemstreet
 
GP
 3rd,
Rossi
 
GR
,
Pisarev
 
VM
 et al.
Cellular immunotherapy study of prostate cancer patients and resulting IgG responses to peptide epitopes predicted from prostate tumor‐associated autoantigens
.
J Immunother
 
2013
;
36
:
57
–
65
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
14

Riker
 
AI
,
Rossi
 
GR
,
Masih
 
P
 et al.
Combination immunotherapy for high‐risk resected and metastatic melanoma patients
.
Ochsner J
 
2014
;
14
:
164
–
174
.

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
15

Choueiri
 
TK
,
Escudier
 
B
,
Powles
 
T
 et al.
Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (METEOR): Final results from a randomised, open‐label, phase 3 trial
.
Lancet Oncol
 
2016
;
17
:
917
–
927
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
16

Motzer
 
RJ
,
Hutson
 
TE
,
Glen
 
H
 et al.
Lenvatinib, everolimus, and the combination in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A randomised, phase 2, open‐label, multicentre trial
.
Lancet Oncol
 
2015
;
16
:
1473
–
1482
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
17

Rini
 
BI
,
Escudier
 
B
,
Tomczak
 
P
 et al.
Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): A randomised phase 3 trial
.
Lancet
 
2011
;
378
:
1931
–
1939
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
18

Motzer
 
RJ
,
Escudier
 
B
,
McDermott
 
DF
 et al.
Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal‐cell carcinoma
.
N Engl J Med
 
2015
;
373
:
1803
–
1813
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
19

Wang
 
C
,
Thudium
 
KB
,
Han
 
M
 et al.
In vitro characterization of the anti‐PD‐1 antibody nivolumab, BMS‐936558, and in vivo toxicology in non‐human primates
.
Cancer Immunol Res
 
2014
;
2
:
846
–
856
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
© AlphaMed Press; the data published online to support this summary are the property of the authors.
This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://dbpia.nl.go.kr/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
Download all slides