Evaluation of disease-free survival as an intermediate metric of overall survival in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma: A trial-level meta-analysis

Surrogacy of Recurrence-free Survival for Overall Survival as an Endpoint of Clinical Trials of Perioperative Adjuvant Therapy in Hepatobiliary-pancreatic Cancers: A Retrospective Study and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the correlation between recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in the hepatobiliary-pancreatic (HBP) surgical setting to validate RFS as a surrogate endpoint.

BACKGROUND

Reliable surrogate endpoints for OS are still limited in the field of HBP surgery.

METHODS

We analyzed patients who underwent curative resection for HBP disease [986 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), 1168 with biliary tract cancer (BTC), 1043 with hepatocellular carcinoma, and 1071 with colorectal liver metastasis] from September 2002 to June 2022. We also conducted meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy to validate the surrogacy in PDAC and BTC.

RESULTS

Correlation coefficients between RFS and OS were low for hepatocellular carcinoma ( p = 0.67) and colorectal liver metastasis ( p = 0.53) but strong for PDAC ( p = 0.80) and BTC ( p = 0.75). In a landmark analysis, the concordance rates between survival or death at 5 years postoperatively and the presence or absence of recurrence at each time point (1, 2, 3, and 4 years) were 50%, 70%, 74%, and 77% for PDAC and 54%, 67%, 73%, and 78% for BTC, respectively, both increasing and reaching a plateau at 3 years. In a meta-analysis, the correlation coefficients for the RFS hazard ratio and OS hazard ratio in PDAC and BTC were p = 0.88 ( P < 0.001) and p = 0.87 ( P < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-year RFS can be a reliable surrogate endpoint for OS in clinical trials of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for PDAC and BTC.

Identification and validation of a novel signature based on macrophage marker genes for predicting prognosis and drug response in kidney renal clear cell carcinoma by integrated analysis of single cell and bulk RNA sequencing

Macrophages are found in a variety of tumors and play a critical role in shaping the tumor microenvironment, affecting tumor progression, metastasis, and drug resistance. However, the clinical relevance of marker genes associated with macrophage in kidney renal clear cell carcinoma (KIRC) has yet to be documented. In this study, we initiated a thorough examination of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data for KIRC retrieved from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database and determined 244 macrophage marker genes (MMGs). Univariate analysis, LASSO regression, and multivariate regression analysis were performed to develop a five-gene prognostic signature in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database, which could divide KIRC patients into low-risk (L-R) and high-risk (H-R) groups. Then, a nomogram was constructed to predict the survival rate of KIRC patients at 1, 3, and 5 years, which was well assessed by receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), calibration curve, and decision curve analyses (DCA). Functional enrichment analysis showed that immune-related pathways (such as immunoglobulin complex, immunoglobulin receptor binding, and cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction) were mainly enriched in the H-R group. Additionally, in comparison to the L-R cohort, patients belonging to the H-R cohort exhibited increased immune cell infiltration, elevated expression of immune checkpoint genes (ICGs), and a higher tumor immune dysfunction and exclusion (TIDE) score. This means that patients in the H-R group may be less sensitive to immunotherapy than those in the L-R group. Finally, IFI30 was validated to increase the ability of KIRC cells to proliferate, invade and migrate in vitro. In summary, our team has for the first time developed and validated a predictive model based on macrophage marker genes to accurately predict overall survival (OS), immune characteristics, and treatment benefit in KIRC patients.

Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors vs. Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors/Everolimus in Adjuvant Renal Cell Carcinoma: Indirect Comparison of Disease-Free Survival

BACKGROUND

The proven efficacy of mTOR inhibitors (mTORIs), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) suggests that these agents should be investigated as adjuvant therapy with the aim of eliminating undetectable microscopic residual disease after curative resection. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of these treatments using an innovative method of reconstructing individual patient data.

METHODS

Nine phase III trials describing adjuvant RCC treatments were selected. The IPDfromKM method was used to reconstruct individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. The combination treatments were compared with the control arm (placebo) for disease-free survival (DFS). Multi-treatment KM curves were used to summarize the results. Standard statistical tests were performed. These included hazard ratio and likelihood ratio tests for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the study showed that two ICIs (nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab) and one TKI (sunitinib) were superior to the placebo, whereas both TKIs and mTORIs were inferior. As we assessed DFS as the primary endpoint for the adjuvant comparison, the overall survival benefit remains unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel approach to investigating survival has allowed us to conduct all indirect head-to-head comparisons between these agents in a context where no "real" comparative trials have been conducted.

Perioperative systemic therapy in renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common kidney neoplasm. Localized RCC can be cured with nephrectomy. However, a proportion of patients will recur with incurable distant metastatic disease. There is a clear need for treatments to reduce the risk of RCC recurrence and thus improve survival. This review describes the landscape of perioperative therapy for RCC, focusing on more recent trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

RECENT FINDINGS

ICIs have significantly changed outcomes in advanced RCC. Four trials investigating the role of perioperative ICI for RCC are now reported. Only one trial utilizing adjuvant pembrolizumab (Keynote-564) has shown a disease-free survival benefit in resected RCC.

SUMMARY

Patients with resected RCC should be counselled on their risk of recurrence and the potential option of adjuvant pembrolizumab, recognizing that overall survival data are not yet available.

Meta-analysis of perioperative immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma: Available, but the jury is still out

INTRODUCTION

While surgical management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is curative for many patients, others may relapse and could benefit from adjuvant treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been proposed as a potential adjuvant therapy for improving survival in these patients, but the benefit/risk ratio of ICI in the perioperative setting remains unclear.

METHODS

A systematic review and a meta-analysis of phase III trials of perioperative ICI (anti PD1/PD-L1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 agents) in RCC was conducted.

RESULTS

The analysis included results from 4 phase III trials, comprising 3,407 patients. ICI did not show a significant increase in disease-free survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.04; p: 0.11) or overall survival [OS] (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40-1.34; p: 0.31). High-grade adverse events were more frequent in the immunotherapy arm (OR 2.65; 95% CI 1.53-4.59; p: <0.001), and high-grade treatment-related adverse events were 8 times more frequent in the experimental arm (OR: 8.07; 95% CI: 3.14-20.75; p: <0.001). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences favoring the experimental arm in females (HR: 0.71; 95 CI 0.55-0.92; p: 0.009), in sarcomatoid differentiation (HR: 0.60 95% CI 0.41-0.89; p: 0.01), and PD-L1 positive tumors (HR HR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.61-0.90; p: 0.003). No significant effect was found in patients according to age, type of nephrectomy (radical vs. partial), and stage (M1 without evidence of disease vs. M0 patients).

CONCLUSION

Our comprehensive meta-analysis generally suggests that immunotherapy does not confer a survival advantage in the perioperative setting for RCC, with the exception of one positive study. While the overall results are not statistically significant, individual patient factors and other variables may play a role in determining who benefits from immunotherapy. Therefore, despite the mixed findings, immunotherapy may still be a viable treatment option for certain patients, and further studies are needed to determine which patient subgroups would be most likely to benefit.

Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo for localised renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Effective adjuvant therapy for patients with resected localised renal cell carcinoma represents an unmet need, with surveillance being the standard of care. We report results from part A of a phase 3, randomised trial that aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo.

METHODS

The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 CheckMate 914 trial enrolled patients with localised clear cell renal cell carcinoma who were at high risk of relapse after radical or partial nephrectomy between 4-12 weeks before random assignment. Part A, reported herein, was done in 145 hospitals and cancer centres across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks for 12 doses plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) intravenously every 6 weeks for four doses, or matching placebo, via an interactive response technology system. The expected treatment period was 24 weeks, and treatment could be continued until week 36, allowing for treatment delays. Randomisation was stratified by TNM stage and nephrectomy (partial vs radical). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival according to masked independent central review; safety was a secondary endpoint. Disease-free survival was analysed in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population); exposure, safety, and tolerability were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (all-treated population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138512.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 28, 2017, and March 16, 2021, 816 patients were randomly assigned to receive either adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (405 patients) or placebo (411 patients). 580 (71%) of 816 patients were male and 236 (29%) patients were female. With a median follow-up of 37·0 months (IQR 31·3-43·7), median disease-free survival was not reached in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and was 50·7 months (95% CI 48·1 to not estimable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·71-1·19; p=0·53). The number of events required for the planned overall survival interim analysis was not reached at the time of the data cutoff, and only 61 events occurred (33 in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 28 in the placebo group). 155 (38%) of 404 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 42 (10%) of 407 patients who received placebo had grade 3-5 adverse events. All-cause adverse events of any grade led to discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in 129 (32%) of 404 treated patients and of placebo in nine (2%) of 407 treated patients. Four deaths were attributed to treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and no deaths were attributed to treatment with placebo.

INTERPRETATION

Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not improve disease-free survival versus placebo in patients with localised renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. Our study results do not support this regimen for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Disease-free survival as a predictor of overall survival in localized renal cell carcinoma following initial nephrectomy: A retrospective analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare datac

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess whether disease-free survival (DFS) may serve as a predictor for long-term survival among patients with intermediate-high risk or high risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC) post-nephrectomy when overall survival (OS) is unavailable.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database (2007-2016) was used to identify patients with non-metastatic intermediate-high risk and high risk RCC post-nephrectomy. Landmark analysis and Kendall's τ were used to evaluate the correlation between DFS and OS. Multivariable regression models were used to quantify the incremental OS post-nephrectomy associated with increased time to recurrence among patients with recurrence, adjusting for baseline covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 643 patients were analyzed; mean age of 75 years; >95% of patients had intermediate-high risk RCC at diagnosis; 269 patients had recurrence post-nephrectomy. For patients with versus without recurrence at the landmark points of 1, 3, and 5 years post-nephrectomy, the 5-year OS were 37.0% versus 70.1%, 42.3% versus 72.8%, and 53.2% versus 78.6%, respectively. The Kendall's τ between DFS and OS post-nephrectomy was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.74; p < 0.001). After adjusting for baseline covariates, patients with one additional year of time to recurrence were associated with 0.73 years longer OS post-nephrectomy (95% CI: 0.40, 1.05; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The significant positive association of DFS and OS among patients with intermediate-high risk and high risk RCC post-nephrectomy from this study supports the use of DFS as a potential predictor of OS for these patients when OS data are immature.

Adjuvant therapy options in renal cell carcinoma - targeting the metastatic cascade

Localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is primarily managed with nephrectomy, which is performed with curative intent. However, disease recurs in ~20% of patients. Treatment with adjuvant therapies is used after surgery with the intention of curing additional patients by disrupting the establishment, maturation or survival of micrometastases, processes collectively referred to as the metastatic cascade. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have shown efficacy in the treatment of metastatic RCC, increasing the interest in the utility of these agents in the adjuvant setting. Pembrolizumab, an inhibitor of the immune checkpoint PD1, is now approved by the FDA and is under review by European regulatory agencies for the adjuvant treatment of patients with localized resected clear cell RCC based on the results of the KEYNOTE-564 trial. However, the optimal use of immunotherapy and VEGFR-targeting TKIs for adjuvant treatment of RCC is not completely understood. These agents disrupt the metastatic cascade at multiple steps, providing biological rationale for further investigating the applications of these therapeutics in the adjuvant setting. Clinical trials to evaluate adjuvant therapeutics in RCC are ongoing, and clinical considerations must guide the practical use of immunotherapy and TKI agents for the adjuvant treatment of localized resected RCC.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Solid Tumors in the Adjuvant Setting: Current Progress, Future Directions, and Role in Transplant Oncology

The rationale for administering immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the adjuvant setting is to eradicate micro-metastases and, ultimately, prolong survival. Thus far, clinical trials have demonstrated that 1-year adjuvant courses of ICIs reduce the risk of recurrence in melanoma, urothelial cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers. Overall survival benefit has been shown in melanoma while survival data are still not mature in other malignancies. Emerging data also show the feasibility of utilizing ICIs in the peri-transplant setting for hepatobiliary malignancies. While ICIs are generally well-tolerated, the development of chronic immune-related adverse events, typically endocrinopathies or neurotoxicities, as well as delayed immune-related adverse events, warrants further scrutiny regarding the optimal duration of adjuvant therapy and requires a thorough risk-benefit determination. The advent of blood-based, dynamic biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can help detect minimal residual disease and identify the subset of patients who would likely benefit from adjuvant treatment. In addition, the characterization of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and ctDNA-adjusted blood tumor mutation burden (bTMB) has also shown promise in predicting response to immunotherapy. Until additional, prospective studies delineate the magnitude of overall survival benefit and validate the use of predictive biomarkers, a tailored, patient-centered approach to adjuvant ICIs that includes extensive patient counseling on potentially irreversible adverse effects should be routinely incorporated into clinical practice.

Adjuvant Therapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Hype or Hope?

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the third most common genitourinary cancer accounting for approximately 180,000 deaths worldwide in 2020. Although over two-thirds of patients initially present localized disease, up to 50% of them may progress to metastatic disease. Adjuvant therapy aims to reduce the recurrence risk and improve outcomes in several types of cancers but is currently an unmet need in RCC. The results achieved with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in metastatic RCC led to the evaluation of these target therapies in an early setting with conflicting results for disease-free survival and no overall survival (OS) benefit. Likewise, the results of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in an adjuvant setting are conflicting. Available data did not show an improvement in OS with ICIs in the early phase, although a positive trend for pembrolizumab has been recorded, receiving the Food and Drug Administration's approval in this setting. However, the disappointing results of several ICIs and the heterogeneous pattern of RCC warrant biomarker identification and subgroup analyses to evaluate which patients could benefit from adjuvant therapy. In this review, we will discuss the rationale for adjuvant treatment in RCC, summarizing the results of the most important adjuvant therapy trials and current applications, to outline possible future directions.

The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as adjuvant treatment in renal cell carcinoma (RCC): A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 ICI is approved for the adjuvant treatment of postnephrectomy patients with clear cell RCC in some countries worldwide. However, recent negative data from randomized clinical trials (RCT) with another ICIs makes the benefit of this treatment uncertain. A systematic review and study-level meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the benefit of disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant ICI treatment for patients with localized and/or metastatic resected RCC. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, a systematic search was performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE, Scopus and EMBASE up to September 15, 2022. The statistical analysis was performed by ProMeta 3 software in intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in predetermined subgroups. Four RCT totalizing 3407 patients were included in this analysis. Systemic immunotherapy was pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab in 496, 390, 404, and 405 patients, respectively. In the ITT population there was a nonstatistically significant DFS benefit with adjuvant ICI (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.69-1.04). Regarding the subgroups, there was a DFS benefit for PD-L1 positive (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55-0.94), intermediate-high risk patients (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63-0.94), and patients with sarcomatoid component (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). This meta-analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant DFS benefit in overall population, however considering the heterogeneity between the RCTs the use of adjuvant ICI should be individualized.

Prognostic value of PD-L1 expression in recurrent renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy: a secondary analysis of the ARCHERY study

BACKGROUND

Nephrectomy is a curative treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but patients with poor prognostic features may experience relapse. Understanding the prognostic impact of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in patients who underwent nephrectomy for RCC may aid in future development of adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

Of 770 surgical specimens collected from Japanese patients enrolled in the ARCHERY study, only samples obtained from patients with recurrent RCC after nephrectomy were examined for this secondary analysis. Patients were categorized into low- and high-risk groups based on clinical stage and Fuhrman grade. Time to recurrence (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Both TTR and OS were shorter in patients with PD-L1-positive than -negative tumors (median TTR 12.1 vs. 21.9 months [HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17, 1.81]; median OS, 75.8 vs. 97.7 months [HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00, 1.75]). TTR and OS were shorter in high-risk patients with PD-L1-positive than -negative tumors (median TTR 7.6 vs. 15.3 months [HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.11, 2.00]; median OS, 55.2 vs. 83.5 months [HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.06, 2.21]) but not in low-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This ARCHERY secondary analysis suggests that PD-L1 expression may play a role in predicting OS and risk of recurrence in high-risk patients with localized RCC.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000034131.

Optimal Choice of Adjuvant Treatment for Renal Cell Carcinoma Following Nephrectomy

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the fourteenth most common cancer worldwide. In about 55% of cases, it is diagnosed at a localised and/or locally advanced stage and therefore amenable to a curative approach. Although nephrectomy still represents the cornerstone of non-metastatic RCC (nmRCC) treatment, a relapse is observed in about 25–30% of patients undergoing curative surgery. Prognosis is drastically influenced by lymph nodal involvement. After the first disappointing results with a cytokine-based strategy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were tested as adjuvant agents. Despite their efficacy in the metastatic setting, results in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) are not unequivocal and the overall survival (OS) benefit has not been demonstrated. Moreover, their toxicity profile induced a remarkable percentage of patients to discontinue the treatment. On the contrary, the KEYNOTE-564 trial showed the benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo in terms of DFS with promising results in term of OS. Patients included were at intermediate or high risk of relapse, or patients with no evidence of disease after metastasectomy (M1 NED). The updated analysis presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genito-Urinary (ASCO GU) 2022 confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab versus placebo over time, although OS data are still immature. A longer follow-up and the several ongoing trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) will provide further data about adjuvant immuno-oncology (IO). Furthermore, the patients’ selection based on clinical or biological features will be crucial in order to identify who benefits most from treatments.

How to optimize the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab in renal cell carcinoma: which patients benefit the most?

PURPOSE

The KEYNOTE-564 trial showed improved disease-free survival (DFS) for patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC) receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab as compared to placebo. However, if systematically administered to all high-risk patients, it might lead to the overtreatment in a non-negligible proportion of patient. Therefore, we aimed to determine the optimal candidate for adjuvant pembrolizumab.

METHODS

Within a prospectively maintained database we selected patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the KEYNOTE-564. We compared baseline characteristics and oncologic outcomes in this cohort with those of the placebo arm of the KEYNOTE-564. Regression tree analyses was used to generate a risk stratification tool to predict 1-year DFS after surgery.

RESULTS

In the off-trial setting, patients had worse tumor characteristics then in the KEYNOTE-564 placebo arm, i.e. there were more pT4 (5.4 vs. 2.7%, p = 0.046) and pN1 (15 vs. 6.3%, p < 0.001) cases. Median DFS was 29 (95% CI 21-35) months as compared to value not reached in KEYNOTE-564 and 1-year DFS was 64.2% (95% CI 59.6-69.2) as compared to 76.2% (95% CI 72.2-79.7), respectively. Patients with pN1 were at the highest risk of 1-year recurrence (1-year DFS 28.6% [95% CI 20.2-40.3]); patients without LNI, but necrosis were at intermediate risk (1-year DFS 62.5% [95% CI 56.9-68.8]); those without LNI and necrosis were at the lowest risk (1-year DFS 83.8% [95% CI 79.1-88.9]). LVI substratification furtherly improved the accuracy in the prediction of early recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients potentially eligible for adjuvant pembrolizumab have worse characteristics and DFS in the off-trial setting as compared to the placebo arm of the KEYNOTE-564. Patients with either LNI or necrosis were at the highest risk of early-recurrence, which make them the ideal candidate to adjuvant pembrolizumab.

Complementary roles of surgery and systemic treatment in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Standard-of-care management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) indisputably relies on surgery for low-risk localized tumours and systemic treatment for poor-prognosis metastatic disease, but a grey area remains, encompassing high-risk localized tumours and patients with metastatic disease with a good-to-intermediate prognosis. Over the past few years, results of major practice-changing trials for the management of metastatic RCC have completely transformed the therapeutic options for this disease. Treatments targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have been the mainstay of therapy for metastatic RCC in the past decade, but the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the therapeutic landscape in the metastatic setting. Results from several pivotal trials have shown a substantial benefit from the combination of VEGF-directed therapy and immune checkpoint inhibition, raising new hopes for the treatment of high-risk localized RCC. The potential of these therapeutics to facilitate the surgical extirpation of the tumour in the neoadjuvant setting or to improve disease-free survival in the adjuvant setting has been investigated. The role of surgery for metastatic RCC has been redefined, with results of large trials bringing into question the paradigm of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy, inherited from the era of cytokine therapy, when initial extirpation of the primary tumour did show clinical benefits. The potential benefits and risks of deferred surgery for residual primary tumours or metastases after partial response to checkpoint inhibitor treatment are also gaining interest, considering the long-lasting effects of these new drugs, which encourages the complete removal of residual masses.

Surrogate Endpoints in Oncology: Overview of Systematic Reviews and Their Use for Health Decision Making in Mexico

OBJECTIVES

The use of surrogate endpoints (SEs) for cancer drug approval in health systems is common. The objectives of this study were to identify systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluated the correlation of SEs with overall survival (OS) in cancer drugs to analyze the applications of approved cancer drugs with SEs in Mexico and to apply the validation framework proposed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).

METHODS

An overview of SRs was conducted according to Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Applications for approved cancer drugs with SEs in Mexico were analyzed. The IQWiG validation framework was applied to evaluate the SEs identified in the overview and in the applications in Mexico.

RESULTS

A total of 85 SRs that assessed 192 SEs for different types of cancer were selected. According to the IQWiG model, only 2.5% of the SEs analyzed in the overview and only one of the applications in Mexico could be used as surrogates for OS because the reliability (methodological quality) of the SRs and the strength of the correlation of SEs with OS was mostly low (92%) and low (correlation coefficient r ≤ 0.7; 50.5%), respectively. Of the total number of cancer drugs approved in Mexico, 19.4% used SEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most SEs for different types of cancer could not be used as surrogates for OS according to the IQWiG model, and their use for the approval of cancer drugs in Mexico is generally not justified.

Adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma: Current knowledges and future perspectives

While many patients with non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can be cured with surgery alone, upward of 40% of patients recur in a short delay, raising the question of additional perioperative treatments. To address this clinical need, multiple trials have investigated the addition of systemic therapy after surgery in localized or locally advanced RCC. However, adjuvant systemic therapies in the past decades have provided disappointing results with only one positive study of antiangiogenic treatments. Debatable clinical benefit of adjuvant antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) therapy at cost of high adverse event profiles have paved the way for development of alternative perioperative strategies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Further investigation into combination therapies with immunotherapy, neoadjuvant approaches and patient selection will be key to determining optimal adjuvant therapy regimens to improve outcomes and increase cure rates for patients with non-metastatic RCC. In this review, we extensively present the strong and weakness of the five adjuvant antiangiogenic TKI trials, highlight the main differences and discuss about the reasons of failure. We also expose the current ongoing clinical trials in the perioperative setting and provide new insights concerning the evolving landscape of the management of non-metastatic RCC.

To Be or "Node" to Be: Nodal Disease and the Role of Lymphadenectomy in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma

Lymph node involvement in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) correlates with poor oncologic outcomes. However, current RCC staging guidelines may not fully reflect the survival impact of lymph node positive disease. Recent data demonstrates that nodal disease has significant impact on survival and modifications to current staging guidelines have been proposed. Lymph node dissection (LND) at the time of surgical intervention for RCC remains controversial. While clinical trial data have demonstrated conflicting evidence for LND, some institutional studies suggests that carefully selected patients at high-risk for recurrence may benefit from LND. Prospectively, clinical trials are examining treating nodal disease and disease at high-risk of recurrence in the neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant setting at the time of nephrectomy. These promising trials are poised, if successful, to influence the treatment paradigm for localized RCC.

BMI, irAE, and gene expression signatures associate with resistance to immune-checkpoint inhibition and outcomes in renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Clinical variables may correlate with lack of response to treatment (primary resistance) or clinical benefit in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) treated with anti-programmed death 1/ligand one antibodies.

METHODS

In this multi-institutional collaboration, clinical characteristics of patients with primary resistance (defined as progression on initial computed tomography scan) were compared to patients with clinical benefit using Two sample t-test and Chi-square test (or Fisher's Exact test). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the distribution of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in all patients and the subsets of patients with clinical benefit or primary resistance. Cox's regression model was used to evaluate the correlation between survival endpoints and variables of interest. To explore clinical factors in a larger, independent patient sample, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) was analyzed. RNAseq gene expression data as well as demographic and clinical information were downloaded for primary tumors of 517 patients included within TCGA-ccRCC.

RESULTS

Of 90 patients, 38 (42.2%) had primary resistance and 52 (57.8%) had clinical benefit. Compared with the cohort of patients with initial benefit, primary resistance was more likely to occur in patients with worse ECOG performance status (p = 0.03), earlier stage at diagnosis (p = 0.04), had no prior nephrectomy (p = 0.04) and no immune-related adverse events (irAE) (p = 0.02). In patients with primary resistance, improved OS was significantly correlated with lower International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk score (p = 0.02) and lower neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (p = 0.04). In patients with clinical benefit, improved PFS was significantly associated with increased BMI (p = 0.007) and irAE occurrence (p = 0.02) while improved OS was significantly correlated with overweight BMI (BMI 25-30; p = 0.03) and no brain metastasis (p = 0.005). The cohort TCGA-ccRCC was examined for the correlations between gene expression patterns, clinical factors, and survival outcomes observing associations of T-cell inflammation and angiogenesis signatures with histologic grade, pathologic stage and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical characteristics including performance status, BMI and occurrence of an irAE associate with outcomes in patients with ccRCC treated with immunotherapy. The inverse association of angiogenesis gene signature with ccRCC histologic grade highlight opportunities for adjuvant combination VEGFR2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor and immune-checkpoint inhibition.

The future of perioperative therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma: how can we PROSPER?

Patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience high rates of recurrence despite definitive surgical resection. Recent trials of adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy have provided conflicting efficacy results at the cost of significant adverse events. PD-1 blockade via monoclonal antibodies has emerged as an effective disease-modifying treatment for metastatic RCC. There is emerging data across other solid tumors of the potential efficacy of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade, and preclinical evidence supporting a neoadjuvant over adjuvant approach. PROSPER RCC is a Phase III, randomized trial evaluating whether perioperative nivolumab increases recurrence-free survival in patients with high-risk RCC undergoing nephrectomy. The neoadjuvant component, intended to prime the immune system for enhanced efficacy, distinguishes PROSPER from other purely adjuvant studies and permits highly clinically relevant translational studies.

Construction and Validation of a 9-Gene Signature for Predicting Prognosis in Stage III Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose: Aim of this study was to develop a multi-gene signature to help better predict prognosis for stage III renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients.

Methods: Fourteen pairs of stage III tumor and normal tissues mRNA expression data from GSE53757 and 16 pairs mRNA expression data from TCGA clear cell RCC database were used to analyze differentially expressed genes between tumor and normal tissues. Common different expressed genes in both datasets were used for further modeling. Lasso Cox regression analysis was performed to select and build prognostic multi-gene signature in TCGA stage III kidney cancer patients (N = 122). Then, the multi-gene signature was validated in stage III renal cancer cases in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (N = 77). C-index and time-dependent ROC were used to test the efficiency of this signature in predicting overall survival.

Results: In total, 1,370 common different expressed genes were found between tumor and normal tissues in both datasets. After Lasso Cox modeling, nine mRNAs were finally identified to build a classifier. Using this classifier, we could classify stage III clear cell RCC patients into high-risk group and low-risk group. Prognosis was significantly different between these groups in discovery TCGA cohort, validation FUSCC cohort and entire set (All P < 0.001). Multivariate cox regression in entire set (N = 199) revealed that risk group classified by 9-gene signature, age of diagnosis, pN stage and ISUP grade were independent prognostic factor of overall survival in stage III kidney cancer patients.

Conclusion: We developed a robust multi-gene classifier that can effectively classify stage III RCC patients into groups with low and high risk of poor prognosis. This signature may help select high-risk patients who require more aggressive adjuvant target therapy or immune therapy.

Pre- and post-operative anti-PD-L1 plus anti-angiogenic therapies in mouse breast or renal cancer models of micro- or macro-metastatic disease

BACKGROUND

There are phase 3 clinical trials underway evaluating anti-PD-L1 antibodies as adjuvant (postoperative) monotherapies for resectable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC); in combination with antiangiogenic VEGF/VEGFR2 inhibitors (e.g., bevacizumab and sunitinib) for metastatic RCC; and in combination with chemotherapeutics as neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapies for resectable TNBC.

METHODS

This study investigated these and similar clinically relevant drug combinations in highly translational preclinical models of micro- and macro-metastatic disease that spontaneously develop after surgical resection of primary kidney or breast tumours derived from orthotopic implantation of murine cancer cell lines (RENCA^luc or EMT-6/CDDP, respectively).

RESULTS

In the RENCA^luc model, adjuvant sunitinib plus anti-PD-L1 improved overall survival compared to either drug alone, while the same combination was ineffective as early therapy for unresected primary tumours or late-stage therapy for advanced metastatic disease. In the EMT-6/CDDP model, anti-PD-L1 was highly effective as an adjuvant monotherapy, while its combination with paclitaxel chemotherapy (with or without anti-VEGF) was most effective as a neoadjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our preclinical data suggest that anti-PD-L1 plus sunitinib may warrant further investigation as an adjuvant therapy for RCC, while anti-PD-L1 may be improved by combining with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant but not the adjuvant setting of treating breast cancer.

Adjuvant Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-targeted Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

CONTEXT

Contradictory data exist with regard to adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy in surgically managed patients for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding the therapeutic benefit (disease-free survival [DFS] and overall survival [OS]) and grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) for adjuvant VEGFR-targeted therapy for resected localized RCC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A critical review of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in January 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was performed. We identified reports and reviewed them according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Of eight full-text articles that were eligible for inclusion, five studies (two of five were updated analyses) were retained in the final synthesis. Study characteristics were abstracted and the number needed to treat (NNT) per trial was estimated.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The three randomized controlled phase III trials included the following comparisons: sunitinib versus placebo or sorafenib versus placebo (Adjuvant Sorafenib or Sunitinib for Unfavorable Renal Carcinoma [ASSURE] study, n=1943), sunitinib versus placebo (S-TRAC, n=615), and pazopanib versus placebo (Pazopanib As Adjuvant Therapy in Localized/Locally Advanced RCC After Nephrectomy study, n=1135). The NNT ranged from 10 (S-TRAC) to 137 (ASSURE study). The pooled analysis showed that VEGFR-targeted therapy was not statistically significantly associated with improved DFS (hazard ratio [HRrandom]: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82-1.03, p=0.16) or OS (HRrandom: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.84-1.15, p=0.84) compared with the control group. The adjuvant therapy group experienced significantly higher odds of grade 3-4 AEs (ORrandom: 5.89, 95% CI: 4.85-7.15, p<0.001). In exploratory analyses focusing on patients who started on the full-dose regimen, DFS was improved in patients who received adjuvant therapy (HRrandom: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73-0.95, p=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis of reported randomized trials did not reveal a statistically significant effect between adjuvant VEGFR-targeted therapy and improved DFS or OS in patients with intermediate/high-risk local or regional fully resected RCC. Improvement in DFS may be more likely with the use of full-dose regimens, pending further results. However, adjuvant treatment was associated with high-grade AEs.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted therapy after nephrectomy for localized kidney cancer is not associated with consistent improvements in delaying cancer recurrence or prolonging life and comes at the expense of potentially significant side effects.

Is there a role for adjuvant therapy after surgery in "high risk for recurrence" kidney cancer? An update on current concepts

Background

Although surgical resection remains the standard of care for localized kidney cancers, a significant proportion of patients experience systemic recurrence after surgery and hence might benefit from effective adjuvant therapy. So far, several treatment options have been evaluated in adjuvant clinical trials, but only a few have provided promising results. Nevertheless, with the recent development of targeted therapy and immunomodulatory therapy, a series of clinical trials are in progress to evaluate the potential of those novel agents in the adjuvant setting. In this paper, we provide a narrative review of the progress in this field, and we summarize the results from recent adjuvant trials that have been completed.

Methods

A literature search was conducted. The primary search strategy at the medline, Cochrane reviews, and http://ClinicalTrials.gov/databases included the keywords "adjuvant therapy," "renal cell carcinoma," and "targeted therapy or/and immunotherapy."

Conclusions

Data from the s-trac study indicated that, in the "highest risk for recurrence" patient population, disease-free survival was increased with the use of adjuvant sunitinib compared with placebo. The assure trial showed no benefit for adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib in the "intermediate- to high-risk" patient population. The ariser (adjuvant girentuximab) and protect (adjuvant pazopanib) trials indicated no survival benefit, but subgroup analyses in both trials recommended further investigation. The inconsistency in some of the current results can be attributed to a variety of factors pertaining to the lack of standardization across the trials. Nevertheless, patients in the "high risk of recurrence" category after surgery for their disease would benefit from a discussion about the potential benefits of adjuvant treatment and enrolment in ongoing adjuvant trials.

First-line Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

In the last decade, there has been a proliferation of treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, direct comparative data are lacking for most of these agents.

OBJECTIVE

To indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies used in the first-line treatment of mRCC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched using the OvidSP platform for studies indexed from database inception to October 23, 2017. Abstracts of conferences of relevant medical societies were included, and the systematic search was supplemented by hand search. For the systematic review, we identified any parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing first-line systemic therapy. For network meta-analysis, we limited these to a clinically-relevant network based on standard practice patterns. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs) were secondary outcomes.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

In total, 37 trials reporting on 13 128 patients were included in the systematic review. The network meta-analysis comprised 10 trials reporting on 4819 patients. For PFS (10 trials, 4819 patients), there was a high likelihood (SUCRA 91%) that cabozantinib was the preferred treatment. For OS (5 trials, 3379 patients), there was a 48% chance that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was the preferred option. There was a 67% likelihood that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was the best tolerated regime with respect to AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are likely to be the preferred first-line agents for treating mRCC; however, direct comparative studies are warranted. These findings may provide guidance to patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions and may help inform future direct comparative trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

There are many treatment options for patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We indirectly compared the available options and found that cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are likely to be preferable choices as the first-line treatment in this situation.

Transforming the Perioperative Treatment Paradigm in Non-Metastatic RCC-A Possible Path Forward

In 2017, there is no adjuvant systemic therapy proven to increase overall survival in non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab improves overall survival in metastatic treatment refractory RCC and is generally tolerable. Mouse solid tumor models have revealed a benefit with a short course of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade compared to adjuvant therapy. Two ongoing phase 2 studies of perioperative nivolumab in RCC patients have shown preliminary feasibility and safety with no surgical delays or complications. The recently opened PROSPER RCC trial (A Phase 3 RandOmized Study Comparing PERioperative Nivolumab vs. Observation in Patients with Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Nephrectomy; EA8143) will examine if the addition of perioperative nivolumab to radical or partial nephrectomy can improve clinical outcomes in patients with high risk localized and locally advanced RCC. With the goal of increasing cure and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates in non-metastatic RCC, we are executing a three-pronged, multidisciplinary approach of presurgical priming with nivolumab followed by resection and adjuvant PD-1 blockade. We plan to enroll 766 patients with clinical stage ≥T2 or node positive M0 RCC of any histology in this global, randomized, unblinded, phase 3 National Clinical Trials Network study. The investigational arm will receive two doses of nivolumab 240 mg IV prior to surgery followed by adjuvant nivolumab for 9 months. The control arm will undergo the current standard of care: surgical resection followed by observation. Patients are stratified by clinical T stage, node positivity, and histology. The trial is powered to detect a 14.4% absolute benefit in the primary endpoint of RFS from the ASSURE historical control of 55.8% to 70.2% at 5 years (HR = 0.70). The study is also powered to detect a significant overall survival benefit (HR 0.67). Key safety, feasibility, and quality of life endpoints are incorporated. PROSPER RCC exemplifies team science with a host of planned correlative work to investigate the impact of the baseline immune milieu and changes after neoadjuvant priming on clinical outcomes.