Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with brain metastases: CheckMate 920

Navigating the Complexities of Brain Metastases Management

The management of brain metastases, a potentially devastating complication of advanced cancers, has become increasingly complex with advancements in local and systemic therapies. Improved outcomes and extended survival for patients with metastatic solid tumors have led to a surge in the prevalence and possibly incidence of brain metastases, affecting up to 40% of individuals with solid tumors. Enhanced imaging technologies contribute to more accurate and early detection, shaping the understanding of the intricate landscape of this condition. Traditionally, surgery and radiation stood as the mainstays of treatment because of the limited efficacy of systemic therapies within the brain. However, emerging clinical data, particularly in melanoma, lung, and breast cancers, reveal promising results with novel systemic treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Despite the historical exclusion of patients with active brain metastases from clinical trials, a shift is occurring toward a more inclusive approach. This chapter delves into the multifaceted challenges associated with managing brain metastases, with a focus on the evolving landscape of systemic approaches as well as the intricacies of shared decision making, providing a comprehensive overview of the current state and future directions in navigating the complexities of brain metastases management.

Therapeutic options for different metastatic sites arising from renal cell carcinoma: A review

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stands among the top 10 malignant neoplasms with the highest fatality rates. It exhibits pronounced heterogeneity and robust metastatic behavior. Patients with RCC may present with solitary or multiple metastatic lesions at various anatomical sites, and their prognoses are contingent upon the site of metastasis. When deliberating the optimal therapeutic approach for a patient, thorough evaluation of significant risk factors such as the feasibility of complete resection, the presence of oligometastases, and the patient's functional and physical condition is imperative. Recognizing the nuanced differences in RCC metastasis to distinct organs proves advantageous in contemplating potential treatment modalities aimed at optimizing survival outcomes. Moreover, discerning the metastatic site holds promise for enhancing risk stratification in individuals with metastatic RCC. This review summarizes the recent data pertaining to the current status of different RCC metastatic sites and elucidates their role in informing clinical management strategies across diverse metastatic locales of RCC.

Special populations in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review focuses on special populations poorly represented in current evidence-based practice for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This includes the elderly and frail, patients on immunosuppression or with autoimmune diseases, patients with brain, liver, and/or bone metastases, and RCC with sarcomatoid features.

RECENT FINDINGS

Certain populations are poorly represented in current trials for mRCC. Patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases are often excluded from first-line therapy trials. Modern doublet systemic therapy appears to benefit patients with bone or liver metastases, but data supporting this conclusion is not robust. Post-hoc analyses on patients with sarcomatoid differentiation have shown improved response to modern doublet therapy over historical treatments. The elderly are underrepresented in current clinical trials, and most trials exclude all but high-performing (nonfrail) patients, though true frailty is likely poorly captured using the current widely adopted indices. It is difficult to make conclusions about the efficacy of modern therapy in these populations from subgroup analyses. Data from trials on other malignancies in patients with autoimmune diseases or solid organ transplant recipients on immunosuppression suggest that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may still have benefit, though at the risk of disease flare or organ rejection. The efficacy of ICIs has not been demonstrated specifically for RCC in this group of patients.

SUMMARY

The elderly, frail, and immunosuppressed, those with tumors having aggressive histologic features, and patients with brain, bone, and/or liver metastases represent the populations least understood in the modern era of RCC treatment.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma management: the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) consensus update

PURPOSE

Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil.

METHODS

A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease.

CONCLUSION

Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature.

Brain metastases and next-generation anticancer therapies: a survival guide for clinicians

Historically, patients with brain metastases (BMs) have been characterized by few systemic treatment options and poor prognosis. The recent introduction of next-generation anticancer therapies such as molecular targeted agents and immunotherapy have revolutionized the clinical decision-making process of this sub-population, posing new challenges to physicians. In this review, current evidence for the use of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies in patients with BMs are discussed, with a focus on lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma and renal cell carcinoma, providing suggestions and potential workflows for daily clinical practice. Several other on-going and future challenges, such as clinical trials design, ways to improve CNS penetration of novel drugs and unique molecular characteristics of BMs, are also discussed. The aim is producing an updated and easy-to-read guide for physicians, to improve decision-making in clinical practice.

Face to face among different chemo-immunotherapy combinations in the first line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Results of an international expert panel meeting by the italian association of thoracic oncology (AIOT)

BACKGROUND

The combination of platinum-based chemotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is a standard of care option in the front-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Positive efficacy and safety results have been demonstrated with different chemo-ICI combinations in the corresponding clinical trials, however no randomized prospective comparison is available and there is no evidence on how to choose among the available regimens.

METHODS

A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2023 to review data on chemo-ICI regimens available in the first-line setting in patients with NSCLC, and reach common considerations both in clinical practice and in research setting.

RESULTS

Overall, all panelists agreed that safety of the chemo-immunotherapy combination regimens is supported by reviewed data, showing no additional toxicity concerns over those of the individual components of each regimen and highlighting differences in toxicity profile based on ICI component (single anti-PD-1 versus double anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4). Among disease characteristics, PD-L1 value (<1%) but not histology was considered a potential selection factor in favor of the combination with dual ICI. With regards to clinical features, the panelists agreed that chemotherapy, whichever the ICI combination regimen, remains the backbone to counteract disease-related symptoms included those conditioning worse performance status. The panelists defined high, medium, and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to prospectively evaluating the impact of the addition of anti-CTLA-4 on brain metastasis, biomarker subgroups, and the optimal duration and schedule of combination regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, the panelists reached common considerations on strengths and differences between chemotherapy plus single agent ICI and chemotherapy plus double agent ICIs in patients with advanced NSCLC. In the absence of direct comparison, different toxicity profile and subgroup analysis by PD-L1 are considered as the main potential features to select among the two regimens, however to be confirmed by recommended prospective randomized clinical research.

Harnessing immunotherapy for brain metastases: insights into tumor-brain microenvironment interactions and emerging treatment modalities

Brain metastases signify a deleterious milestone in the progression of several advanced cancers, predominantly originating from lung, breast and melanoma malignancies, with a median survival timeframe nearing six months. Existing therapeutic regimens yield suboptimal outcomes; however, burgeoning insights into the tumor microenvironment, particularly the immunosuppressive milieu engendered by tumor-brain interplay, posit immunotherapy as a promising avenue for ameliorating brain metastases. In this review, we meticulously delineate the research advancements concerning the microenvironment of brain metastases, striving to elucidate the panorama of their onset and evolution. We encapsulate three emergent immunotherapeutic strategies, namely immune checkpoint inhibition, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell transplantation and glial cell-targeted immunoenhancement. We underscore the imperative of aligning immunotherapy development with in-depth understanding of the tumor microenvironment and engendering innovative delivery platforms. Moreover, the integration with established or avant-garde physical methodologies and localized applications warrants consideration in the prevailing therapeutic schema.

Outcomes of Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma With Non-Clear Cell Histology Treated With Systemic Therapy

BACKGROUND

Patients with nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and RCC with sarcomatoid differentiation have been under-represented in clinical trials. This study evaluates the outcomes and treatment patterns of patients with non-clear cell RCC and RCC with sarcomatoid features compared to those with clear cell RCC receiving systemic therapy.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective analysis of patients with advanced or metastatic RCC receiving systemic therapy was conducted. Patients were divided into groups based on histology: nonclear cell RCC, clear cell RCC, and RCC with and without sarcomatoid features. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) for each group calculated from the date of diagnosis of advanced or metastatic RCC to the date of last follow-up or death. Additionally, an exploratory analysis was conducted by nonclear cell type and type of first-line treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, 251 patients were included, with most treated before 2018. First-line therapies included vascular endothelial growth factor monotherapy (68.5%), immunotherapy monotherapy (7.6%), immunotherapy combination therapy (16.7%), or other treatments (7.2%). Overall survival was shorter for patients with nonclear cell RCC compared to clear cell RCC (39.2 months vs. 81.1 months, hazard ratio (HR), 1.60, 95% Confidence Interval 1.0, 2.6, P = .04). Additionally, OS for patients with sarcomatoid differentiation was shorter compared to patients without sarcomatoid differentiation (43.4 vs. 75.0 months, HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.8, 2.6, P = .20).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate inferior outcomes among patients with advanced or metastatic nonclear cell RCC and RCC with sarcomatoid differentiation receiving systemic treatment. Further prospective studies are warranted testing immunotherapy combinations and novel treatments in patients with nonclear cell RCC.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Updates in Leptomeningeal Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is a devastating complication of advanced metastatic cancer associated with a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. This study reviews the current understanding of the clinical presentation, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of LMD. We highlight opportunities for advances in this disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent years, the use of soluble CSF biomarkers has expanded, suggesting improved sensitivity over traditional cytology, identification of targetable mutations, and potential utility for monitoring disease burden. Recent studies of targeted small molecules and intrathecal based therapies have demonstrated an increase in overall and progression-free survival. In addition, there are several ongoing trials evaluating immunotherapy in LMD. Though overall prognosis of LMD remains poor, studies suggest a potential role for soluble CSF biomarkers in diagnosis and management and demonstrate promising findings in patient outcomes with targeted therapies for specific solid tumors. Despite these advances, there continues to be a gap of knowledge in this disease, emphasizing the importance of inclusion of LMD patients in clinical trials.

Triplet Strategies in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Worthy Option in the First-Line Setting?

Significant strides have been made in the frontline treatment of patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). There are multiple standard-of-care doublet regimens consisting of either the combined dual immune checkpoint inhibitors, ipilimumab and nivolumab, or combinations of a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor and an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Currently, there is an emergence of clinical trials examining triplet combinations. In COSMIC-313, a randomized phase III trial for patients with untreated advanced ccRCC, the triplet combination of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and cabozantinib was compared with a contemporary control arm of ipilimumab and nivolumab. While patients receiving the triplet regimen demonstrated improved progression-free survival, these patients also experienced greater toxicity and the overall survival data are still maturing. In this article, we discuss the role of doublet therapy as standard of care, the current data available for the promise of triplet therapy, the rationale to continue pursuing trials with triplet combinations, and factors for clinicians and patients to consider when choosing among frontline treatments. We present ongoing trials with an adaptive design that may serve as alternative methods for escalating from doublet to triplet regimens in the frontline setting and explore clinical factors and emerging predictive biomarkers (both baseline and dynamic) that may guide future trial design and frontline treatment for patients with advanced ccRCC.

Clinical and genomic features in patients with second primary glioblastoma following first primary renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

To explore the potential pathogenesis and clinical features of second primary glioblastoma (spGBM) following first primary renal cell carcinoma (fpRCC).

METHODS

Patients with spGBM after fpRCC were enrolled from our institution and the SEER dataset. Sanger sequencing, whole genome sequencing, and immunehistochemistry were used to detect molecular biomarkers.

RESULTS

Four and 122 cases from our institution and the SEER dataset, respectively, were collected with an overall median age of 69 years at spGBM diagnosis following fpRCC. The median interval time between fpRCC and spGBM was 50.7 months and 4 years, for the four and 122 cases respectively. The median overall survival time was 11.2 and 6.0 months for the two datasets. In addition, spGBM patients of younger age (< 75 years) or shorter interval time (< 1 year) had favorable prognosis (p = 0.081 and 0.05, respectively). Moreover, the spGBM cases were molecularly classified as TERT only paired with TP53 mutation, PIK3CA mutation, EGFR alteration, low tumor mutation burden, and stable microsatellite status.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to investigate the pathogenesis and clinical features of spGBM following spRCC. We found that spGBMs are old-age related, highly malignant, and have short survival time. Moreover, they might be misdiagnosed and treated as brain metastases from RCC. Thus, the incidence of spGBMs after fpRCC is underestimated. Further studies are needed to investigate the underlying molecular mechanisms and clinical biomarkers for the development of spGBM following fpRCC.

An Update on the Treatment of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma

Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the second-most common subtype of kidney cancer following clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), representing 15% of kidney cancers. Despite advances in therapy, including combination strategies with targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors, progress has lagged behind that of ccRCC. This is in part due to the heterogenous nature of the various subtypes of pRCC. More recently, investigators have turned efforts towards histology and biology-based trials. In this review, we outline some of the distinct biological characteristics of pRCC and discuss the most impactful clinical trials to date. Finally, we look ahead to several highly anticipated ongoing trials in pRCC.

Outcomes and prognostic factors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with brain metastases

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with brain metastatic renal cell carcinoma (bmRCC).

METHODS

The data of 322 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, taken between 2012 and 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Overall survival (OS) and prognostic factors were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Forty (12.4%) of the patients had bmRCC. Seventeen (42.5%) of the patients were de novo metastatic, and nine (22.5%) of the patients had brain metastases at presentation. Twenty-four (60%) patients previously had received various therapies (tyrosine kinase inhibitor or checkpoint inhibitors). After brain metastases developed, 35 (87.5%) of the patients received brain radiotherapy (whole-brain radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery), and twenty-five (62.5%) patients received different systemic therapies. Nine patients received sunitinib, nine received pazopanib, five received nivolumab, and two received axitinib. The median OS was 8.8 months (range: 2.9-14.6) for all patients with bmRCC. In univariate analysis, the number of brain metastasis (P = 0.35), the site of brain metastasis (left, right or bilateral) (P = 0.79), the largest size of brain metastasis (P = 0.45), the number of extracranial metastatic sites (P = 0.81), de novo metastatic disease (P = 0.17), primary tumor site (left or right) (P = 0.90), and tumor grade (P = 0.09) were not statistically significant factors on OS. However, age (P = 0.02), a history of nephrectomy (P < 0.001), receiving brain radiotherapy (P = 0.005), and type of systemic treatment (P = 0.04) were statistically significant. Only, the effect of brain radiotherapy on OS (P = 0.01) was confirmed in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that the prognosis of patients with bmRCC was poor. Despite a small number of patients, we detected that the effect of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and nivolumab was comparable, and receiving brain radiotherapy was a prognostic factor for OS.

A Retrospective Study of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients With Brain Metastases

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) involving the central nervous system is currently an excluded subgroup of patients in the systemic treatment; for this reason, there is no solid data to support the efficacy of therapies in this subgroup. That is why it is important to describe real-life experiences in order to know if there is a special change in clinical behavior or treatment response in these kinds of patients. Patients and methods A retrospective review was performed to characterize mRCC patients diagnosed with brain metastases (BrM) during treatment at the National Institute of Cancerology of Bogota, Colombia. Descriptive statistics and time-to-event methods are used to evaluate the cohort. For the descriptive measures of quantitative variables, the mean with standard deviation was taken, and the minimum and maximum values were reported. In the case of qualitative variables, absolute and relative frequencies were used. The software used was R - Project v4.1.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Results A total of 16 patients were included with mRCC between January 2017 to August 2022 with a median 35.1-month follow-up, 4/16 (25%) were diagnosed with BrM at the time of screening and 12/16 (75%) during treatment. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk (IMDC) was favorable for 12.5%, intermediate for 43.7%, and poor for 25%, and not classified for 18.8%, BrM involvement was multifocal in 50% of the population and localized, brain-directed therapy was done in 43.7% of patients, predominantly palliative radiotherapy. Median overall survival (OS) for all the patients regardless of the time of metastatic presentation of the disease in the central nervous system was 53.5 months (0-70.3), and OS for cases with central nervous system involvement was 10.9 months. IMDC risk did not correlate with survival (log-rank, p=0.67). The OS for the subgroup of patients who debut with metastatic disease in the central nervous system is different from the group that developed metastasis in the progression of their disease (OS of 42 vs 3.6 months, respectively). Conclusions This is the largest descriptive study in Latin America and the second in the world from one institution that admits patients with metastasic renal cell carcinoma and central nervous system metastasis. In these kinds of patients with metastatic disease or progression to the central nervous system, there is a hypothesis that shows more aggressive clinical behavior. There is limited data on locoregional intervention to metastatic disease in the nervous system drastically, but trends show this could impact overall survival outcomes.

Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma with Checkpoint Inhibitors in Clinical Practice in the Volga-Ural Region of the Eurasian Continent

INTRODUCTION

Renal cancer ranks 10th in the mortality structure of the Russian Federation. The introduction of checkpoint inhibitors has changed the paradigm of treatment of patients with malignant neoplasms.

METHOD

Data from clinical trials have shown good progression-free median and median overall survival. Each cancer center has been accumulating its own experience in treating patients with renal cell cancer by applying modern target drugs and immunotherapy.

RESULT

In routine clinical practice, oncologists do not get the results that have been demonstrated in clinical trials when evaluating the effectiveness of the therapy.

CONCLUSION

In this single-center clinical study, we discuss the results of using nivolumab as mono-therapy and the combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab in metastatic renal parenchyma cancer patients.

Long-term outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment of patients with advanced sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) provided efficacy benefits over sunitinib (SUN) in patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC at 42 months minimum follow-up in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, we report clinical efficacy of NIVO+IPI in sRCC after a minimum follow-up of 5 years.

METHODS

In CheckMate 214, patients with clear cell advanced RCC were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses), then NIVO 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks versus SUN 50 mg once daily (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Randomized patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histological classification per local pathology report. Overall survival (OS), as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1, were evaluated in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk sRCC patients and by baseline tumor PD-L1 expression level (≥1% vs <1%). Safety outcomes are reported using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In total, 139 patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC were identified (NIVO+IPI, n=74; SUN, n=65). At 5 years minimum follow-up, more patients remained on treatment with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (12% vs zero). Efficacy benefits with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were maintained with median OS of 48.6 vs 14.2 months (HR 0.46), median PFS of 26.5 vs 5.5 months (HR 0.50), and ORR 60.8% vs 23.1%. In addition, median duration of response was longer (not reached vs 25.1 months), and more patients had complete responses (23.0% vs 6.2%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively. Efficacy was better with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression, but the magnitude of OS, PFS, and ORR benefits with NIVO+IPI was greater for sRCC patients with tumor PD-L1 ≥1%. No new safety signals emerged in either arm with longer follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC, NIVO+IPI maintained long-term survival benefits and demonstrated durable and deep responses over SUN at minimum follow-up of 5 years, supporting NIVO+IPI as a preferred first-line therapy in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02231749.

Safety and efficacy of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab alternating with nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: the non-randomised, open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 920 trial

OBJECTIVES

The non-randomised, open-label, phase IIIb/IV multicohort CheckMate 920 trial explored the safety and efficacy with a less frequent, but continual nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) dosing regimen (cohort 1) to determine whether this modification could potentially retain efficacy benefits while improving on the manageable safety profile previously observed with this combination in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

SETTING

Patients were enrolled from 48 largely community-based sites in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

106 patients with previously untreated, predominantly clear cell aRCC received treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received NIVO 6 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg on day 1 of the first week of each 8-week cycle; the combination alternated with NIVO 480 mg monotherapy on day 1 of the fifth week of each 8-week cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent or study end. The maximum treatment duration was 2 years. The primary endpoint was the incidence of high-grade (grade 3/4 and grade 5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) within 100 days of the last dose. Select secondary endpoints included time to onset and resolution of high-grade IMAEs, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events and the overall survival (OS) were the exploratory endpoints.

RESULTS

The most common grade 3/4 IMAEs were diarrhoea/colitis (7.5%) and rash (6.6%) and no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, with a minimum follow-up of 28.5 months. The median PFS was 4.8 (95% CI 3.0 to 8.3) months, the ORR in evaluable patients (n=96) was 34.4% (95% CI 25.0 to 44.8), and the median OS was not reached (95% CI 24.8 months to not estimable).

CONCLUSIONS

While no new safety signals were reported with less frequent, but continual NIVO+IPI dosing in CheckMate 920, the modified regimen was not associated with clinical benefits relative to the approved NIVO+IPI dose. These results support the continued use of the currently approved NIVO+IPI combination dosing schedule for patients with aRCC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02982954.

An interdisciplinary consensus on the management of brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma

Brain metastases are a challenging manifestation of renal cell carcinoma. We have a limited understanding of brain metastasis tumor and immune biology, drivers of resistance to systemic treatment, and their overall poor prognosis. Current data support a multimodal treatment strategy with radiation treatment and/or surgery. Nonetheless, the optimal approach for the management of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma remains unclear. To improve patient care, the authors sought to standardize practical management strategies. They performed an unstructured literature review and elaborated on the current management strategies through an international group of experts from different disciplines assembled via the network of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition. Experts from different disciplines were administered a survey to answer questions related to current challenges and unmet patient needs. On the basis of the integrated approach of literature review and survey study results, the authors built algorithms for the management of single and multiple brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The literature review, consensus statements, and algorithms presented in this report can serve as a framework guiding treatment decisions for patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:454-489.

A Profile of Avelumab Plus Axitinib in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma

Until recently, the approved first-line treatment for metastatic RCC (mRCC) consisted of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR) monotherapy. The landscape of first-line treatment has been transformed in the last few years with the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or VEGFR TKI plus ICI combinations. This article focuses on the profile of one of these ICI plus VEGFR TKI combination, avelumab plus axitinib. We detail the characteristics of each drug separately, and then we explore the rationale for their association, its efficacy and the resulting toxicity. Finally, we examine the factors associated with avelumab plus axitinib outcomes, and their impact on therapeutic strategy.

Management of Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations for the management of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

METHODS

An Expert Panel conducted a systematic literature review to obtain evidence to guide treatment recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel considered peer-reviewed reports published in English.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The diagnosis of metastatic ccRCC should be made using tissue biopsy of the primary tumor or a metastatic site with the inclusion of markers and/or stains to support the diagnosis. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk criteria should be used to inform treatment. Cytoreductive nephrectomy may be offered to select patients with kidney-in-place and favorable- or intermediate-risk disease. For those who have already had a nephrectomy, an initial period of active surveillance may be offered if they are asymptomatic with a low burden of disease. Patients with favorable-risk disease who need systemic therapy may be offered an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in combination with a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI); patients with intermediate or poor risk should be offered a doublet regimen (no recommendation was provided between ICIs or an ICI in combination with a VEGFR TKI). For select patients, monotherapy with either an ICI or a VEGFR TKI may be offered on the basis of comorbidities. Interleukin-2 remains an option, although selection criteria could not be identified. Recommendations are also provided for second- and subsequent-line therapy as well as the treatment of bone metastases, brain metastases, or the presence of sarcomatoid features. Participation in clinical trials is highly encouraged for patients with metastatic ccRCC.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.