Author
Saby George
Other affiliations: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Cleveland Clinic ...read more
Bio: Saby George is an academic researcher from Roswell Park Cancer Institute. The author has contributed to research in topics: Nivolumab & Renal cell carcinoma. The author has an hindex of 31, co-authored 138 publications receiving 10182 citations. Previous affiliations of Saby George include Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center & University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.
Topics: Nivolumab, Renal cell carcinoma, Sunitinib, Medicine, Internal medicine
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, Institut Gustave Roussy2, Harvard University3, Roswell Park Cancer Institute4, Johns Hopkins University5, Stanford University6, University of Washington7, Vanderbilt University8, Fox Chase Cancer Center9, Macquarie University10, Aarhus University11, University of Helsinki12, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust13, University of Duisburg-Essen14, Niigata University15, Swansea University16, University of British Columbia17, Bristol-Myers Squibb18, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center19
TL;DR: Overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma.
Abstract: BackgroundNivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment. MethodsA total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety. ResultsThe median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The haz...
4,643 citations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center2, Harvard University3, Fox Chase Cancer Center4, University of Strasbourg5, Queen Mary University of London6, Aarhus University7, Rabin Medical Center8, Tel Aviv University9, University of British Columbia10, Roswell Park Cancer Institute11, Cancer Research UK12, University of Jena13, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul14, Niigata University15, Complutense University of Madrid16, Cleveland Clinic17, Bristol-Myers Squibb18, Johns Hopkins University19, Macquarie University20, Université Paris-Saclay21
TL;DR: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate‐ and poor‐risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal‐cell carcinoma.
Abstract: Background Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Methods We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. Results A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follo...
2,984 citations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, Cleveland Clinic2, Harvard University3, University of Michigan4, Northwestern University5, Duke University6, Wayne State University7, Medical University of South Carolina8, Roswell Park Cancer Institute9, Indiana University10, Stanford University11, Fox Chase Cancer Center12, Bristol-Myers Squibb13, Johns Hopkins University14
TL;DR: Nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile across the three doses studied in mRCC, and no dose-response relationship was detected as measured by PFS.
Abstract: Purpose Nivolumab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 programmed death–1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody that restores T-cell immune activity. This phase II trial assessed the antitumor activity, dose-response relationship, and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients and Methods Patients with clear-cell mRCC previously treated with agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway were randomly assigned (blinded ratio of 1:1:1) to nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the dose-response relationship as measured by progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results A total of 168 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab 0.3- (n = 60), 2- (n = 54), and 10-mg/kg (n = 54) cohorts. One hundred eighteen patients (70%) had received more than one prior systemic regimen. Median PFS was 2.7, 4.0, a...
923 citations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, Cleveland Clinic2, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center3, Johns Hopkins University4, Institut Gustave Roussy5, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven6, Roswell Park Cancer Institute7, Rabin Medical Center8, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center9, Sheba Medical Center10, Fox Chase Cancer Center11, University Medical Center Groningen12, University of Michigan13, Palacký University, Olomouc14, Queen Mary University of London15, Northwood University16, Brigham and Women's Hospital17, Aarhus University Hospital18, Macquarie University19, University of Calgary20, Durham University21, Niigata University22, Bristol-Myers Squibb23, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center24
TL;DR: Results showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival and characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients.
Abstract: Summary Background In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. Methods In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. Findings Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4–36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6–not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1–33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54–0·80], p Interpretation The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.
527 citations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center2, Harvard University3, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance4, University of Michigan5, University of Pennsylvania6, Northwestern University7, Huntsman Cancer Institute8, Washington University in St. Louis9, Mayo Clinic10, University of California, San Diego11, Stanford University12, University of Wisconsin-Madison13, University of Nebraska Medical Center14, University of Colorado Boulder15, Ohio State University16, Case Western Reserve University17, University of Tennessee Health Science Center18, National Comprehensive Cancer Network19
TL;DR: The major changes to the 2012 and 2011 NCCN Guidelines for Soft Tissue Sarcoma pertain to the management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors and desmoid tumors.
Abstract: The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
459 citations
Cited by
More filters
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, Institut Gustave Roussy2, Harvard University3, Roswell Park Cancer Institute4, Johns Hopkins University5, Stanford University6, University of Washington7, Vanderbilt University8, Fox Chase Cancer Center9, Macquarie University10, Aarhus University11, University of Helsinki12, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust13, University of Duisburg-Essen14, Niigata University15, Swansea University16, University of British Columbia17, Bristol-Myers Squibb18, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center19
TL;DR: Overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma.
Abstract: BackgroundNivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment. MethodsA total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety. ResultsThe median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The haz...
4,643 citations
TL;DR: New-generation combinatorial therapies may overcome resistance mechanisms to immune checkpoint therapy, and evidence points to alterations that converge on the antigen presentation and interferon-γ signaling pathways.
Abstract: The release of negative regulators of immune activation (immune checkpoints) that limit antitumor responses has resulted in unprecedented rates of long-lasting tumor responses in patients with a variety of cancers. This can be achieved by antibodies blocking the cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) or the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) pathway, either alone or in combination. The main premise for inducing an immune response is the preexistence of antitumor T cells that were limited by specific immune checkpoints. Most patients who have tumor responses maintain long-lasting disease control, yet one-third of patients relapse. Mechanisms of acquired resistance are currently poorly understood, but evidence points to alterations that converge on the antigen presentation and interferon-γ signaling pathways. New-generation combinatorial therapies may overcome resistance mechanisms to immune checkpoint therapy.
3,736 citations
French Institute of Health and Medical Research1, Université Paris-Saclay2, Institut Gustave Roussy3, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University4, Paris Diderot University5, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center6, University of Orléans7, Paris Descartes University8, Cornell University9, Aix-Marseille University10
TL;DR: It is found that primary resistance to ICIs can be attributed to abnormal gut microbiome composition, and Antibiotics inhibited the clinical benefit of ICIs in patients with advanced cancer.
Abstract: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis induce sustained clinical responses in a sizable minority of cancer patients. We found that primary resistance to ICIs can be attributed to abnormal gut microbiome composition. Antibiotics inhibited the clinical benefit of ICIs in patients with advanced cancer. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) from cancer patients who responded to ICIs into germ-free or antibiotic-treated mice ameliorated the antitumor effects of PD-1 blockade, whereas FMT from nonresponding patients failed to do so. Metagenomics of patient stool samples at diagnosis revealed correlations between clinical responses to ICIs and the relative abundance of Akkermansia muciniphila Oral supplementation with A. muciniphila after FMT with nonresponder feces restored the efficacy of PD-1 blockade in an interleukin-12-dependent manner by increasing the recruitment of CCR9+CXCR3+CD4+ T lymphocytes into mouse tumor beds.
3,258 citations
TL;DR: The immune system recognizes and is poised to eliminate cancer but is held in check by inhibitory receptors and ligands, so drugs interrupting immune checkpoints, such as anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, and others in early development, can unleash anti-tumor immunity and mediate durable cancer regressions.
3,097 citations