ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT Adi Diab 1, Nizar Tannir 1, Daniel Cho

Similar documents
NKTR-214 (CD-122-biased agonist) plus nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors: Preliminary phase 1/2 results of PIVOT

Jefferies 2018 Healthcare Conference. June 6, 2018

ASCO Nektar Therapeutics Investor & Analyst Event. June 2, 2018

2019 ASCO-SITC. Nektar Therapeutics Investor & Analyst Call. March 1, 2019

Piper Jaffray 29 th Annual Healthcare Conference

SITC Nektar Therapeutics Investor & Analyst Call with Melanoma Specialists. November 10, 2018

Presenter Disclosure Information

ICONIC: Biologic and clinical activity of first in class ICOS agonist antibody JTX /- nivolumab (nivo) in patients with advanced cancers

2019 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Presenter Disclosure Information

JP Morgan Healthcare Conference. Howard Robin President & CEO January 9, 2018

Enhanced cancer vaccine effectiveness with NKTR-214, a CD122 biased cytokine

Idera Pharmaceuticals. ASCO 2018 Annual Meeting Investor/Analyst Event

AACR 2018 Investor Meeting

Disclosures Information Brendan D. Curti, MD


Idera Pharmaceuticals

Bristol-Myers Squibb, Braine-l Alleud, Belgium; 12 MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

II sessione. Immunoterapia oltre la prima linea. Alessandro Tuzi ASST Sette Laghi, Varese

Phase 1 Study Combining Anti-PD-L1 (MEDI4736) With BRAF (Dabrafenib) and/or MEK (Trametinib) Inhibitors in Advanced Melanoma

Enhanced Cancer Vaccine Effectiveness with NKTR-214, a CD122-Biased Cytokine

37th Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference. Howard Robin President & CEO January 8, 2019

III Sessione I risultati clinici

Jefferies 2017 Global Healthcare Conference. Stephen Doberstein, Ph.D. Senior Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer

CheckMate 012: Safety and Efficacy of First Line Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Pembrolizumab for Patients With PD-L1 Positive Advanced Carcinoid or Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Results From the KEYNOTE-028 Study

Nivolumab: esperienze italiane nel carcinoma polmonare avanzato

Randomized trial of irinotecan and cetuximab with or without vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (SWOG S1406)

Presenter Disclosure Information

Developping the next generation of studies in RCC

Heme Onc Today New York Melanoma Meeting March 22-23, 2013 PD-1 antibodies

Clinical Activity and Safety of Anti-PD-1 (BMS , MDX-1106) in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Supplementary Appendix

Presentation Number: LBA18_PR. Lecture Time: 09:15-09:27. Speakers: Heinz-Josef J. Lenz (Los Angeles, US) Background

ONCOS-102 in melanoma Dr. Alexander Shoushtari. 4. ONCOS-102 in mesothelioma 5. Summary & closing

IMpower132: PFS and Safety Results with 1L Atezolizumab + Carboplatin/Cisplatin + Pemetrexed in Stage IV Non-Squamous NSCLC

La revolución de la inmunoterapia: dónde la posicionamos? Javier Puente, MD, PhD

ASCO 2014 Highlights*

Novel RCC Targets from Immuno-Oncology and Antibody-Drug Conjugates

NSCLC: immunotherapy as a first-line treatment. Paolo Bironzo Oncologia Polmonare AOU S. Luigi Gonzaga Orbassano (To)

Nivolumab in Patients With DNA Mismatch Repair Deficient/Microsatellite Instability High Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Update From CheckMate 142

Nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc): Results of a phase I trial

Checkpoint regulators a new class of cancer immunotherapeutics. Dr Oliver Klein Medical Oncologist ONJCC Austin Health

B. G. Redman University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. J. A. Thompson University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Immunotherapy for Melanoma. Michael Postow, MD Melanoma and Immunotherapeutics Service Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

NKTR-214 plus NKTR-262, a Scientifically-Guided Rational Combination Approach for Immune Oncology

Osimertinib Activity in Patients With Leptomeningeal Disease From Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Updated Results From the BLOOM Study

Weitere Kombinationspartner der Immunotherapie

Checkpointinhibitoren in der Uro-Onkologie. Carsten Grüllich

Checkpoint-Inhibitoren beim Lungenkarzinom. Dr. Helge Bischoff Thoraxklinik Heidelberg

ESMO 2016 * Investor Meeting October 9, *European Society of Medical Oncology, October 7-11, 2016 ESMO 2016 NOT FOR PRODUCT PROMOTIONAL USE

Immune checkpoint blockade in lung cancer

Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancers. Robert F. Taylor, MD Aurora Health Care

INITIAL RESULTS OF PHASE 1 STUDY OF DCC-2618, A BROAD-SPECTRUM KIT AND PDGFR

ASCO 2017 updates in Colorectal and Gastric Cancers. May Cho, M.D.

Phase 1b KEYNOTE-200 (STORM):

Metastatic NSCLC: Expanding Role of Immunotherapy. Evan W. Alley, MD, PhD Abramson Cancer Center at Penn Presbyterian

Corporate Presentation

Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancers. Barbara Burtness, MD Yale University

Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

Immunotherapy for Breast Cancer. Aurelio B. Castrellon Medical Oncology Memorial Healthcare System

New Avenues for the development and evaluation of therapy: Complex, multi-pronged, not one size fitting all

Update on new agents in Gastrointestinal Tumor (GIST)

Supplementary Online Content

Corporate Presentation: Jefferies Global Healthcare Conference June 7, 2018

Understanding Checkpoint Inhibitors: Approved Agents, Drugs in Development and Combination Strategies. Michael A. Curran, Ph.D.

Phase 1 Data from ECHO-202. ESMO 2016, Copenhagen October 7 th, 2016

Targeted therapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Tom Stinchcombe Duke Cancer Insitute

REWRITING CANCER TREATMENT THROUGH EPIGENETIC MEDICINES

Pembrolizumab in Metastatic Melanoma

DCC-2618, a novel pan-kit and PDGFR

Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer

Evan J. Lipson, M.D.

Overview: Immunotherapy in CNS Metastases

Update on the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors

Fifteenth International Kidney Cancer Symposium November 4-5, 2016 Marriott Miami Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida, USA

Targeting the genetic and immunological drivers of cancer

R&D Conference Call. CHUGAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. Department Manager of Oncology Lifecycle Management Dept. Megumi Uzu.

Encouraging activity of novel pan-kit and PDGFRα inhibitor DCC-2618 in patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST)

Young Kwang Chae 1,2,3*, Ayush Arya 1, Wade Iams 3, Marcelo R. Cruz 1, Sunandana Chandra 1,2,3, Jaehyuk Choi 2,3 and Francis Giles 1,2,3

Use of Single-Arm Cohorts/Trials to Demonstrate Clinical Benefit for Breakthrough Therapies. Eric H. Rubin, MD Merck Research Laboratories

6/7/16. Melanoma. Updates on immune checkpoint therapies. Molecularly targeted therapies. FDA approval for talimogene laherparepvec (T- VEC)

Immunotherapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma. James Larkin

What we learned from immunotherapy in the past years

This clinical study synopsis is provided in line with Boehringer Ingelheim s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data.

Determined to realize a future in which people with cancer live longer and better than ever before CORPORATE PRESENTATION JUNE 2017

Long-term safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC): 24-month update of the pivotal ERIVANCE BCC study

Determined to realize a future in which people with cancer live longer and better than ever before CORPORATE PRESENTATION SEPTEMBER 2017

ASSESSING LONG-TERM BENEFITS OF IMMUNOTHERAPY BASED ON EARLY TUMOR ASSESSMENT DATA

OUR EXPERIENCES WITH ERLOTINIB IN SECOND AND THIRD LINE TREATMENT PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED STAGE IIIB/ IV NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER

Checkpoint Inibitors for Bladder Cancer

Rob Ross, MD. Infinity Pharmaceuticals March 9 th, 2011

New Systemic Therapies in Advanced Melanoma

Phase 3 Perioperative Nivolumab in M0 RCC (PROSPER RCC, ECOG ACRIN 8143) A UROLOGIST S PERSPECTIVE

Immunotherapy in Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma: Where Do We Stand? Sanjiv S. Agarwala, MD St. Luke s Cancer Center Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

A randomized phase 2 trial of CRLX101 in combination with bevacizumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) vs standard of care

Challenges in Distinguishing Clinical Signals to Support Development Decisions: Case Studies

Mind the Gap : Challenges in First-in- Man Evaluation of Immuno-Oncology Drugs

CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPMENT OF PEMBROLIZUMAB IN MSI-H CANCERS

Transcription:

Pivot-02: Preliminary safety, efficacy and biomarker results from dose escalation of the Phase 1/2 study of CD-122-biased agonist NKTR-214 plus nivolumab in patients with locally advanced/metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma and non-small cell lung cancer ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02983045 Adi Diab 1, Nizar Tannir 1, Daniel Cho Adi 2, Vali Papadimitrakopoulou Diab, MD, 1, Chantale Bernatchez MD Anderson 1, Cara Haymaker 1, Salah Eddine Bentebibel Cancer Center 1, Brendan Curti 3, Michael Wong 1, Scott Tykodi 4, Igor Puzanov 5, Ira Smalberg 6, Ivan Gergel 7, Mary Tagliaferri 7, Jonathan Zalevsky 7, Ute Hoch 7, Sandra Aung 7, Michael Imperiale 7, Wendy Clemens 8, Harriet Kluger 9, Michael Hurwitz 9, Patrick Hwu 1, Mario Sznol 9 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; 2 NYU Medical Oncology Associates, New York, NY, USA; 3 Providence Cancer Center and Earle A. Chiles Research Institute, Portland, OR, USA; 4 University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; 5 Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA; 6 Imaging/Radiology Consultant, Los Angeles, CA,USA; 7 Nektar Therapeutics, San Francisco, CA, USA; 8 Bristol-Myers Squibb, New York, NY, USA; 9 Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA 1

Presenter Disclosure Information Dr. Adi Diab, MD Anderson Cancer Center The following relationships exist related to this presentation: Research funding (institution): Nektar Therapeutics and Bristol-Myers Squibb 2

NKTR-214 Background: Harnessing the IL-2 Pathway to Increase TILs Prodrug (inactive) NKTR-214 prodrug design with sustained signaling Q2W or Q3W Dosing Mitigation of rapid immune stimulation to achieve safe, outpatient regimen Biased signaling preferentially activates and expands effector T cells and NK cells over Tregs in the tumor microenvironment Increases proliferation of TILs and PD-1 expression on effector T cells in the tumor microenvironment 3

Clinical and Preclinical Rationale for Combination of NKTR-214 + Anti-PD-1 NKTR-214 Monotherapy Clinical Trial 1 NKTR-214 + Anti-PD-1 Preclinical Data 2 PD-1 Expression on CD8 T Cells in Blood CD8 / Treg Ratio in Tumor 1600 CT26 Mouse Colon Tumor Model 25 40 1400 Ki67+ CD8 + K i67 + PD -1 + (% CD8) 20 15 10 5 0 C1D1 N=10 patients Day C1D8 Fold-Change from Baseline 30 20 10 0 CD8 Tregs Fold change expressed as Week 3 / pre-dose Shown are results from N=10 patients Q3W dose schedules Mean Tumor Volume (m m 3 ± SEM) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 treatment duration Vehicle A nti-c TLA-4 A nti-pd -1 NKTR-214 A nti-c TLA -4 + A nti-p D -1 NKTR-214 + Anti-PD-1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Blood: Increase in newly proliferating (Ki67+) PD-1+ CD8 T cells Tumor: Increase in total T cells, NK and CD8+ T cells with no increase in Tregs, increase in newly proliferating (Ki67+) PD-1+ CD8 T cells Days NKTR-214 dosed 0.8 mg/kg q9dx3, anti-pd-1 or anti-ctla-4 dosed 200ug or 100ug 2x/week respectively. 1. Abstract No: 2545 (Board #37) ASCO 2017; 2. Abstract 11545 (169221): ASCO 2016. 4

PIVOT-02 Dose Escalation Patients Phase 1b (N=38) IO Treatment-Naïve MEL 1L (with known BRAF status) (N=11) RCC 1L, 2L (N=22) NKTR-214 0.006 mg/kg Q3W + NIVO 240 mg Q2W N=4 RP2D NSCLC 1L, 2L (EGFR & ALK WT) (N=5) Confirmed locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors Measurable disease per RECIST 1.1 ECOG 0 or 1 NKTR-214 0.003 mg/kg Q2W + NIVO 240 mg Q2W N=3 NKTR-214 0.006 mg/kg Q2W + NIVO 240 mg Q2W N=3 NKTR-214 0.006 mg/kg Q3W + NIVO 360 mg Q3W MAD N=22 Adequate organ function Fresh biopsy and archival tissue NKTR-214 0.006 mg/kg Q3W + NIVO 360 mg Q3W N=3 NKTR-214 0.009 mg/kg Q3W + NIVO 360 mg Q3W Dose Limiting Toxicities (N=2) 5 N=3

PIVOT-02 Dose Expansion Underway in 13 Cohorts MEL 1L IO naïve Phase 2 (N= ~330) N= 20-38 per cohort MEL 2/3L IO R/R RP2D RCC 1L RCC 2/3L IO naïve IO R/R NSCLC 1L PD-L1 50% NSCLC 1L PD-L1 <1% NKTR-214 0.006 mg/kg Q3W + NIVO 360 mg Q3W NSCLC 1L IO naïve NSCLC 1L PD-L1 1% to <50% N=22 NSCLC 2L NSCLC 2/3L UC (Bladder) 1L UC (Bladder) 2/3L IO naïve IO R/R IO naïve IO R/R NSCLC 2L PD-L1 <1% UC 1L UC 1L Cisplatin-ineligible R/R: progressed on Anti-PD-(L)1 TNBC 1/2L IO naïve 6

Study Assessments Data cutoff: November 2, 2017 Efficacy Response was assessed by investigator every 8 (+/- 1) weeks per RECIST v1.1 and immune-related RECIST (irrecist) Per protocol, efficacy-evaluable is defined as patients with 1 post baseline scan Safety and tolerability Adverse events were assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03 Safety-evaluable includes 1 dose of study treatment Biomarker exploratory analyses Baseline tumor PD-L1 status by tumor type Longitudinal sampling of blood and tumor biopsies to be presented at a future conference 7

Dose Escalation: Patient Demographics and Disease Characteristics Total (N=38) Melanoma (N=11) RCC (N=22) NSCLC (N=5) Sex Male 30 (78.9%) 7 (63.6%) 19 (86.4%) 4 (80.0%) Female 8 (21.1%) 4 (36.4%) 3 (13.6%) 1 (20.0%) Age (years) Median (Range) 61 (22-72) 62 (22-70) 61 (45-72) 58 (53-72) ECOG Performance Status 0 25 (65.8%) 8 (72.7%) 15 (68.2%) 2 (40.0%) 1 13 (34.2%) 3 (27.3%) 7 (31.8%) 3 (60.0%) Prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease 0 26 (68.4%) 11 (100%) 14 (63.6%) 1 (20.0%) 1 12 (31.6%) 0 8 (36.4%) 4 (80.0%) 8

Dose Escalation: Disease Characteristics BRAF status Melanoma (N=11) % Mutant V600E 6 54.5 Wild-Type 5 45.5 LDH at baseline* High 4 36.4 Normal 7 63.6 PD-L1 status** Positive 1% 6 54.5 Negative <1% 5 45.5 Stage M1a 1 9.1 M1b 2 18.2 M1c 8 72.7 Liver metastases at baseline Yes 4 36.4 No 7 63.6 * Based on maximum value prior to dosing. ** Measured using either 28-8 or 22C3 assays on fresh or archival tumor with specific cutoffs. RCC (N=22) % 1L IMDC Score n=14 Favorable 1 7.1 Intermediate 12 85.7 Poor 1 7.1 1L PD-L1 status ** n=14 Positive 1% 4 28.6 Negative <1% 8 57.1 No available biopsy 2 14.3 2L PD-L1 status ** n=8 Positive 1% 5 62.5 Negative <1% 3 37.5 NSCLC (N=5) % Histologic Subtype Adenocarcinoma 4 80.0 Squamous 1 20.0 Smoker Yes 5 100.0 No 0 0 PD-L1 status ** Positive 1% 0 0 Negative <1% 5 100.0 9

Dose Escalation: Disease Characteristics BRAF status Melanoma (N=11) % Mutant V600E 6 54.5 Wild-Type 5 45.5 LDH at baseline* High 4 36.4 Normal 7 63.6 PD-L1 status** Positive 1% 6 54.5 Negative <1% 5 45.5 Stage M1a 1 9.1 M1b 2 18.2 M1c 8 72.7 Liver metastases at baseline Yes 4 36.4 No 7 63.6 * Based on maximum value prior to dosing. ** Measured using either 28-8 or 22C3 assays on fresh or archival tumor with specific cutoffs. RCC (N=22) % 1L IMDC Score n=14 Favorable 1 7.1 Intermediate 12 85.7 Poor 1 7.1 1L PD-L1 status ** n=14 Positive 1% 4 28.6 Negative <1% 8 57.1 No available biopsy 2 14.3 2L PD-L1 status ** n=8 Positive 1% 5 62.5 Negative <1% 3 37.5 NSCLC (N=5) % Histologic Subtype Adenocarcinoma 4 80.0 Squamous 1 20.0 Smoker Yes 5 100.0 No 0 0 PD-L1 status ** Positive 1% 0 0 Negative <1% 5 100.0 10

Dose Escalation: Disease Characteristics BRAF status Melanoma (N=11) % Mutant V600E 6 54.5 Wild-Type 5 45.5 LDH at baseline* High 4 36.4 Normal 7 63.6 PD-L1 status** Positive 1% 6 54.5 Negative <1% 5 45.5 Stage M1a 1 9.1 M1b 2 18.2 M1c 8 72.7 Liver metastases at baseline Yes 4 36.4 No 7 63.6 * Based on maximum value prior to dosing. ** Measured using either 28-8 or 22C3 assays on fresh or archival tumor with specific cutoffs. RCC (N=22) % 1L IMDC Score n=14 Favorable 1 7.1 Intermediate 12 85.7 Poor 1 7.1 1L PD-L1 status ** n=14 Positive 1% 4 28.6 Negative <1% 8 57.1 No available biopsy 2 14.3 2L PD-L1 status ** n=8 Positive 1% 5 62.5 Negative <1% 3 37.5 NSCLC (N=5) % Histologic Subtype Adenocarcinoma 4 80.0 Squamous 1 20.0 Smoker Yes 5 100.0 No 0 0 PD-L1 status ** Positive 1% 0 0 Negative <1% 5 100.0 11

PIVOT-02: Best Percent Change in Target Lesions by Tumor Type and Dose (n=36) Best % Change in Tumor Size from Baseline NKTR-214 0.006 mg/kg Q3W 26/36 (72%) Reduction in Target Lesions * Best overall response is PD (SD for target lesions, PD per non-target lesions) # Best overall response is SD (PR for target lesions, PD per new lesion at confirmatory scan) Tumor Histology + Best overall response is PR (CR for target lesions, non-target lesions still present) Data are shown for patients with post-baseline scans that included assessment of target lesions. Two patients not included in the figure: one patient discontinued from study due to clinical progression before the first post-baseline tumor assessment and one patient on treatment does not have a post-baseline scan. 12

Stage IV Treatment-Naïve Melanoma Patients (N=11) Best Overall Response by RECIST*: ORR=7/11 (64%); DCR=10/11 (91%) Best Overall Response by irrecist: ORR=8/11 (73%); DCR=10/11 (91%) % Change From Baseline in Target Lesions % Change in Target Lesions Over Time Best % Change in Tumor Size from Baseline Change in Tumor Size (%) from Baseline Median TTR 1.7 mos Weeks Since Treatment Initiation Horizontal dotted lines indicate the thresholds for PD and response according to RECIST (version 1.1) criteria. # Best Overall Response is SD (PR for target lesions, PD per new lesion on confirmatory scan) + Best Overall response is PR (CR for target lesions, non-target lesions still present) *One patient in ORR calculation has unconfirmed PR. 13

Time to and Duration of Response Stage IV Treatment-Naïve Melanoma All patients with responses (7/7) are still on treatment Patients With Disease Control RECIST 1.1 Criteria + + Best Overall response is PR (CR for target lesions, non-target lesions still present) Time on Study (Weeks) 14

Stage IV Treatment-Naïve 1L Renal Cell Carcinoma (N=13) Efficacy-evaluable patients with 1 or 2 post baseline scans Best ORR by RECIST 1 post baseline scan: ORR=6/13 (46%); DCR=11/13 (85%) Best % Change in Tumor Size from Baseline % Change From Baseline in Target Lesions PD-L1 Negative Change in Tumor Size (%) from Baseline % Change in Target Lesions Over Time Median TTR 1.9 mos Weeks Since Treatment Initiation Horizontal dotted lines indicate the thresholds for PD and response according to RECIST (version 1.1) criteria. * Best overall response is PD (SD for target lesions, PD per non-target lesions). 15

Stage IV Treatment-Naïve 1L Renal Cell Carcinoma (N=13) Efficacy-evaluable patients with 1 or 2 post baseline scans Best ORR by RECIST 1 post baseline scan: ORR=6/13 (46%); DCR=11/13 (85%) Best ORR by RECIST 2 post baseline scans: ORR=6/10 (60%); DCR=8/10 (80%) Best % Change in Tumor Size from Baseline % Change From Baseline in Target Lesions PD-L1 Negative Change in Tumor Size (%) from Baseline % Change in Target Lesions Over Time 2 Scans 1 ucr 5 PR 2 SD 2 PD** Median TTR 1.9 mos Weeks Since Treatment Initiation Horizontal dotted lines indicate the thresholds for PD and response according to RECIST (version 1.1) criteria. * Best overall response is PD (SD for target lesions, PD per non-target lesions). **Includes PD with 1 post base-line scan 16

Time to and Duration of Response Stage IV Treatment-Naïve Renal Cell Carcinoma 1L (CR, PR or SD) All patients with disease control (11/13) are still on treatment Patients With Disease Control RECIST 1.1 Criteria Time on Study (Weeks) 17

Stage IV IO-Naïve PD-L1 Negative NSCLC (1L and 2L) Best Overall Response by RECIST (2L): ORR=3/4 (75%); DCR=3/4 (75%) Best Overall Response by RECIST (1L and 2L): ORR=3/5 (60%); DCR=3/5 (60%) % Change From Baseline in Target Lesions % Change in Target Lesions Over Time Best % Change in Tumor Size from Baseline 1L Change in Tumor Size (%) from Baseline Median TTR (2L) 1.7 mos Horizontal dotted lines indicate the thresholds for PD and response according to RECIST (version 1.1) criteria. Weeks Since Treatment Initiation 18

Best Overall Response by RECIST 1.1 as of November 2, 2017 Patients Stage IV Treatment- Naïve Melanoma (N=11) Stage IV Treatment-Naïve 1L RCC (N=14) Patients with at least one or more scans Patients with at least two or more scans or PD** 2L RCC (N=8) 1L NSCLC (N=1) Total Evaluable 11 13 10 7 1 4 2L NSCLC (N=4) ORR (CR+PR) 7 (64%) + 6 (46%) 6 (60%) 1 (14%) 0 (0) 3 (75%) CR 2 (18%) 1 (8%) # 1 (10%) # 0 0 1 (25%) # PR 5 (45%) 5 (38%) 5 (50%) 1 (14%) 0 2 (50%) SD 3 (27%) 5 (38%) 2 (20%) 6 (86%) 1 (100%) 0 DCR (CR+PR+SD) 10 (91%) 11 (85%) 8 (80%) 7 (100%) 1 (100%) 3 (75%) PD 1 2 2 0 0 1 CR, complete response; DCR, disease control rate; ORR, objective response rate; PR, partial response; PD, progressive disease; SD, stable disease + CR is waiting to be confirmed for 1 of 2 patients with CR; one patient in calculation has upr. # PR for patient confirmed. CR is waiting to be confirmed. ** Patients with at least 2 post-baseline scans or progressed on 1 st post-baseline scan. 19

Treatment-Related AEs Total (N=38) NKTR-214 0.006 q3w + Nivo 360 (N=25) NKTR-214 0.006 q3w + Nivo 240 (N=4) NKTR -214 0.006 q2w + Nivo 240 (N=3) NKTR-214 0.003 q2w + Nivo 240 (N=3) NKTR-214 0.009 q3w + Nivo 360 (N=3) Preferred Term [1] Grade 3 or 4 4 (10.5%) 1 (4.0%) 1 (25.0%) 0 0 2 (66.7%) Acidosis 1 (2.6%) 0 0 0 0 1 (33.3%) Arthralgia 1 (2.6%) 0 1 (25.0%) 0 0 0 Diarrhea 1 (2.6%) 0 0 0 0 1 (33.3%) Hyperglycemia 1 (2.6%) 0 0 0 0 1 (33.3%) Hyperthyroidism 1 (2.6%) 0 0 0 0 1 (33.3%) Hyponatraemia 1 (2.6%) 1 (4.0%) 0 0 0 0 Hypotension 1 (2.6%) 0 0 0 0 1 (33.3%) Syncope 1 (2.6%) 1 (4.0%) 0 0 0 0 Grade 1&2 (>25%) Fatigue 28 (73.7%) 17 (68.0%) 4 (100.0%) 2 (66.7%) 3 (100.0%) 2 (66.7%) Flu Like Symptoms** 26 (68.4%) 15 (60.0%) 3 (75.0%) 3 (100.0%) 2 (66.7%) 3 (100.0%) Rash* 23 (60.5%) 13 (52.0%) 4 (100.0%) 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 3 (100.0%) Pruritus 16 (42.1%) 8 (32.0%) 2 (50.0%) 2 (66.7%) 2 (66.7%) 2 (66.7%) Headache 14 (36.8%) 8 (32.0%) 3 (75.0%) 1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) Nausea 14 (36.8%) 8 (32.0%) 3 (75.0%) 1 (33.3%) 0 2 (66.7%) Diarrhea 12 (31.6%) 8 (32.0%) 2 (50.0%) 0 1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) Arthralgia 11 (28.9%) 6 (24.0%) 3 (75.0%) 1 (33.3%) 0 1 (33.3%) Decreased Appetite 10 (26.3%) 3 (12.0%) 3 (75.0%) 2 (66.7%) 0 2 (66.7%) (1) Patients are only counted once under each preferred term using highest grade * Rash includes the following MedDRA preferred terms: Rash, rash erythematous, rash macular and rash maculo-popular; ** Flu-like symptoms includes the following MedDRA preferred terms: influenza-like illness, pyrexia, and chills. AEs occurred in same patient, patient was dose reduced to NKTR-214 0.003 mg/kg + nivo 360 mg q3w and patient continues on treatment with ongoing confirmed PR No study discontinuations due to TRAEs No treatmentrelated deaths No G3/4 immunemediated AEs at RP2D and lower 20

Conclusions NKTR-214 plus nivolumab is a novel combination of immuno-oncology agents with differentiated, complementary and non-overlapping mechanisms of immune activation Efficacy results demonstrate important clinical activity in both PD-L1 negative and positive patients All patients with responses continue on treatment Few patients experienced rapid progression on treatment Melanoma 1 st line: ORR 64% (2 CR, 5 PR), DCR 91%, mttr 1.7 mos RCC 1 st line: ( 1 scan) ORR 46% (1 CR, 5 PR), DCR 85%, mttr 1.9 mos; ( 2 scans) ORR 60%, DCR 80% NSCLC 2 nd line (PD-L1 Negative): ORR 75% (1 CR, 2 PR), DCR 75%, mttr 1.7 mos NKTR-214 plus nivolumab is safe and tolerable and can be administered as a convenient, outpatient regimen No study discontinuations due to TRAEs and no treatment related deaths NKTR-214 did not increase the risk for imaes associated with nivolumab RP2D established NKTR-214 0.006 mg/kg plus nivolumab 360 mg IV Q3W Enrollment to 13 expansion cohorts is underway (N=~330) 21

Acknowledgments A special thank you is extended to the patients, their families and all study staff who are participating and have participated in the PIVOT-02 dose-escalation study and PIVOT expansion study MD Anderson Patrick Hwu, MD Nizar Tannir, MD Vali Papadimitrakopoulou, MD Michael Wong, MD Chantale Bernatchez, PhD Cara Haymaker, PhD Salah Bentebibel, PhD Yale University Mario Sznol, MD Michael Hurwitz, MD Harriet Kluger, MD Scott Gettinger, MD Providence Cancer Center Brendan Curti, MD New York University Daniel Cho, MD Roswell Park Cancer Institute Igor Puzanov, MD Seattle Cancer Center Scott Tykodi, MD 22