Adjuvant Therapy Options in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Where Do We Stand?

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.

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.

Clinical and economic burdens of recurrence following nephrectomy for intermediate high- or high-risk renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data

BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is associated with a high risk of recurrence. Although RCC has been shown to impose a substantial burden on patients, little is known about the incremental clinical and economic burden attributable to disease recurrence. With recent advances in the RCC-therapeutic landscape, including adjuvant therapies, it is important to quantify the clinical and economic burden associated with RCC recurrence to better evaluate the potential impact of treatment in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the incremental clinical and economic burden associated with disease recurrence among patients with intermediate high-risk and high-risk RCC postnephrectomy. METHODS: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database (2007-2016) were used to identify patients with newly diagnosed, intermediate high-risk or high-risk RCC following nephrectomy. Patients with a diagnosis of metastatic disease or repeat nephrectomy or initiating a systemic treatment for advanced RCC were grouped as the recurrence cohort; patients without evidence of recurrence were grouped as the cohort without recurrence. Health care resource utilization (HRU), health care costs (2019 US dollars), and overall survival (OS) were compared between cohorts with and without recurrence, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 269 patients with recurrence and 374 patients without recurrence were analyzed. Mean age was 75.2 and 75.7 years (P = 0.383), respectively, and 64.7% and 57.8% (P = 0.076) of patients were male, respectively. Median follow-up duration was 17 and 28 months, respectively. Patients with recurrence had a significantly shorter OS relative to patients without recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio = 6.00; 95% CI = 4.24-8.48; P < 0.001). Additionally, compared with patients without recurrence, patients with recurrence had significantly more inpatient admissions (0.16 vs 0.04 admissions per person-month [PM]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 3.88; 95% CI = 3.12-4.81), outpatient visits (3.06 vs 1.77 visits per PM; aIRR = 1.68; 95% CI = 1.56-1.81), emergency department visits (0.10 vs 0.05 visits per PM; aIRR = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.66-2.68), and days hospitalized (1.40 vs 0.35 days per PM; aIRR = 6.73; 95% CI = 4.95-9.15) per patient per month (all P < 0.001). Adjusted mean monthly health care costs per patient were significantly higher among patients with recurrence vs patients without recurrence (differences of all-cause total costs, total medical costs, and pharmacy cost per month: $6,320, $4,924, and $1,387; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RCC recurrence is associated with a significant increase in mortality, HRU, and health care costs, highlighting the substantial unmet need in patients with intermediate high-risk and high-risk RCC postnephrectomy when adjuvant therapies are not widely available. DISCLOSURES: Dr Sundaram is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., and holds stock in AbbVie, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck & Co., Inc. Dr Bhattacharya is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., and holds stock in Merck & Co., Inc. Dr Adejoro and Dr Rogerio were employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. at the time of study conduct. Dr Adejoro holds stock in Johnson & Johnson. Dr Song, Dr Zhang, Mr Carley, and Dr Signorovitch are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting firm that received funding from Merck & Co., Inc. for the conduct of this research. Ms Zhu was an employee of Analysis Group, Inc. at the time of study conduct. Dr Haas is a Professor of Medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania and also serves on the advisory board for Aveo, Calithera and Exelixis, Co. Financial support for this study was provided by Merck & Co., Inc. The study sponsor was involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, interpretation of data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in the Treatment of Metastasised Renal Cell Carcinoma—Future or the Past?

Simple Summary

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the sixth most frequently diagnosed cancer in men and the tenth in women with a rising incidence. The treatment of metastasized RCC has dramatically changed in the last decade, improving the overall survival of patients significantly. In this context, cornerstones of the treatment have been tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), with Sunitinib being the preferred first-line treatment for most cases. With the introduction of immunotherapy and combination therapy, this changed recently. The current article summarizes the available literature on TKI treatment of metastasized RCC and shows the current part of TKIs in the treatment algorithm as well as its potential future role.

Abstract

Background: To review and discuss the literature on applying tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in the treatment of metastasised renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Materials and Methods: Medline, PubMed, the Cochrane database, and Embase were screened for randomised controlled trials, clinical trials, and reviews on treating renal cell carcinoma, and the role of TKI. Each substance’s results were summarised descriptively. Results: While TKI monotherapy is not currently recommended as a first-line treatment for metastasized renal cell carcinoma, TKIs are regularly applied to treat treatment-naïve patients in combination with immunotherapy. TKIs depict the first-choice alternative therapy if immunotherapy is not tolerated or inapplicable. Currently, seven different TKIs are available to treat mRCC. Conclusions: The importance of TKIs in a monotherapeutic approach has declined in the past few years. The current trend toward combination therapy for mRCC, however, includes TKIs as one significant component of treatment regimens. We found that to remain applicable to ongoing studies, both when including new substances and when testing novel combinations of established drugs. TKIs are of major importance for the treatment of renal cancer now, as well as for the foreseeable future.

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.

Referral and adjuvant treatment patterns after nephrectomy in high-risk locoregional renal cell carcinoma

Background

It is unclear whether patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are routinely assessed for recurrence risk post‐nephrectomy and whether patients at high recurrence risk are seen by providers who can evaluate candidacy for adjuvant systemic therapy (AST) and clinical trials.

Materials and Methods

We identified all patients with locoregional RCC who underwent nephrectomy via an institutional database within Duke University Health System between 1 April 2015 and 31 December 2019. Medical records were reviewed to identify patient characteristics, post‐nephrectomy referrals, treatment, and follow‐up. Patients with tumor stage ≥3 and grade ≥2, regional lymph node metastasis, or both, were classified as high recurrence risk.

Results

Of 618 patients with locoregional RCC who underwent nephrectomy, 136 (22%) had high recurrence risk. Of those, 25 patients with high‐risk disease (18%) were referred to medical oncology for discussion of AST; 23 (92%) of these referrals took place in 2018–2019. One patient received adjuvant sunitinib and two patients participated in adjuvant immunotherapy trials. The decision not to receive AST was primarily made by the oncologist in 10 (46%), the patient in 8 (36%), and unrecorded in 4 (18%) of 22 cases, for multiple reasons. Individual surgeons referred high‐risk patients for discussion of AST with varying frequency, ranging from 0% to 100% in 2019.

Conclusions

Despite increasing number of patients with locoregional RCC at high recurrence risk referred to medical oncologists after nephrectomy, few patients received AST, including participation in clinical trials. With increasing AST options and ongoing clinical trials in this space, these findings highlight the need for continued efforts at identifying effective AST and referring patients most likely to benefit to medical oncologists.

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04309617.

A Real-World, Population-Based Retrospective Analysis of Therapeutic Survival for Recurrent Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma After Nephrectomy

We retrospectively analyzed therapeutic strategies and risk factors for overall survival (OS) in disease recurrence following curative nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma (loRCC) using the Korean National Cancer Registry Database. We selected 1295 recurrent loRCC patients who underwent either partial or radical nephrectomy from 2007-2013. Patients were excluded for age <19 years, secondary RCC, multiple primary tumors, other SEER stages except for a localized or regional stage, postoperative recurrence within 3-month, and non-nephrectomized cases. Four therapeutic groups were statistically analyzed for OS and risk factors: surgery (OP, 12.0%), other systemic therapy (OST, 59.5%), radiotherapy (RT, 2.8%), and targeted therapy (TT, 25.8%). The overall mortality rate for recurrent loRCC was 32.5%, including 82.4% for RCC-related deaths. The baseline comparison among groups showed statistical differences for the diagnostic age of cancer and the SEER stage (p<0.05). Multivariate analysis of OS showed significance for the TT (hazard ratio [HR]: 6.27), OST (HR: 7.05), and RT (HR: 7.47) groups compared with the OP group, along with significance for the sex, SEER stage, and the time from nephrectomy to treatment for disease recurrence (p<0.05). The median OS curve showed a significantly better OS in the OP group (54.9 months) compared with the TT, OST, and RT groups (41.7, 42.9, and 38.0 months, respectively; p<0.001). In conclusion, the surgery-treated group had the best OS among the different therapeutic strategies for recurrent loRCC after nephrectomy, and the importance of the time from nephrectomy to secondary treatment was a significant prognostic factor.

Prognostic significance of pathologic nodal positivity in non-metastatic patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy

This retrospective, five-multicenter study was aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of pathologic nodal positivity on recurrence-free (RFS), metastasis-free (MFS), overall (OS), and cancer-specific (CSS) survivals in patients with non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (nmRCC) who underwent either radical or partial nephrectomy with/without LN dissection. A total of 4236 nmRCC patients was enrolled between 2000 and 2012, and followed up through the end of 2017. Survival measures were compared between 52 (1.2%) stage pT1-4N1 (LN+) patients and 4184 (98.8%) stage pT1-4N0 (LN-) patients using Kaplan-Meier analysis with the log-rank test and Cox regression analysis to determine the prognostic risk factors for each survival measure. During the median 43.8-month follow-up, 410 (9.7%) recurrences, 141 (3.3%) metastases, and 351 (8.3%) deaths, including 212 (5.0%) cancer-specific deaths, were reported. The risk factor analyses showed that predictive factors for RFS, CSS, and OS were similar, whereas those of MFS were not. After adjusting for significant clinical factors affecting survival outcomes considering the hazard ratios (HR) of each group, the LN+ group, even those with low pT stage, had similar to or worse survival outcomes than the pT3N0 (LN-) group in multivariable analysis and had significantly more relationship with RFS than MFS. All survival measures were significantly worse in pT1-2N1 patients (MFS/RFS/OS/CSS; HR 4.12/HR 3.19/HR 4.41/HR 7.22) than in pT3-4N0 patients (HR 3.08/HR 2.92/HR 2.09/HR 3.73). Therefore, LN+ had an impact on survival outcomes worse than pT3-4N0 and significantly affected local recurrence rather than distant metastasis compared to LN- in nmRCC after radical or partial nephrectomy.

Improving patient-clinician communication following nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma: Development, content validation and pilot testing of a conversation aid tool

OBJECTIVES

This study developed, and established the content validity, of a conversation aid tool (CAT) for use in clinical practice with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients who receive a curative nephrectomy and are at high-risk of recurrence. The CAT was pilot tested in a sample of RCC patients to establish whether the CAT increases knowledge of RCC, treatment options (such as adjuvant therapy), and care options.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, mixed methods design was used involving initial, exploratory interviews with RCC patients, RCC specialists and a steering group. Further content validation interviews were conducted with RCC patients and specialists. A web-based survey was conducted with RCC patients (N = 60), to compare the CAT versus a standard of care (SOC) consultation comparator tool on patient knowledge.

RESULTS

Findings from exploratory interviews were used to develop the CAT. Content validation interviews demonstrated that the CAT was well understood and relevant to RCC patients. The web-based survey demonstrated that viewing the CAT significantly improved participants knowledge of RCC, and care options, when compared to the SOC.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight that the CAT is a relevant, comprehensive and well-understood tool for use in the post-nephrectomy consultation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Use of the CAT may increase patient knowledge of RCC and care options.

Microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT) is a promising independent prognostic marker and tumor suppressive protein in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT) overexpression has been linked to poor prognosis in several cancers. MAPT-AS1 is a long noncoding RNA existing at the antisense strand of the MAPT promoter region. The clinical significance of MAPT and MAPT-AS-1 in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is unknown. This study aimed to assess the expression and function of MAPT and MAPT-AS1 in ccRCC.

METHODS

The expression of MAPT was determined using immunohistochemistry in ccRCC. The effects of MAPT knockdown on cell growth and invasion were evaluated and the interaction between MAPT and microtubule-associated protein tau antisense (MAPT-AS1) were analyzed. The expression of MAPT-AS1 was determined using quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in ccRCC tissues. We investigated the effect of MAPT-AS1 knockdown on cell growth and invasion. We analyzed the regulation of MAPT and MAPT-AS1.

RESULTS

Immunohistochemistry in 135 ccRCC cases showed that 61% of the cases were positive for MAPT. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the low expression of MAPT was associated with poor overall survival after nephrectomy. Knockdown of MAPT enhanced cell growth and invasion. quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction revealed a positive correlation between MAPT and MAPT-AS1. The expression of MAPT-AS1 was higher in ccRCC tissue than in nonneoplastic kidney tissue. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the low expression of MAPT-AS1 was associated with poor overall survival after nephrectomy by in silico analysis. MAPT-AS1 knockdown promoted cell growth and invasion activity. P53 knockout suppressed the expression of MAPT and MAPT-AS1.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that MAPT and MAPT-AS1 may be promising predictive biomarkers for survival and play a tumor-suppressive role in ccRCC.