Characterization of PD-1 and PD-L1 Expression in Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Large Multicenter Study

PD-L1 expression and its prognostic value in metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma: Results from a GETUG multicenter retrospective cohort

INTRODUCTION

Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is a rare and aggressive cancer with no specifically established therapeutic strategy in the metastatic setting. Combinations of tyrosine kinase and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are a promising option. We aimed to study the immune landscape of metastatic pRCC, and its interactions with angiogenesis pathways, to search for potential therapeutic targets.

METHODS

The expression of immune markers (PD-L1, PD-1, PD-L2, LAG-3) and angiogenic pathways (CAIX, c-MET), was analyzed by immunohistochemistry on 68 metastatic pRCC retrieved from a retrospective multicenter GETUG cohort. Our primary endpoint was to estimate the prevalence of PD-L1 expression and its prognostic impact in metastatic pRCC. Secondary endpoints included the evaluation of other immune markers (PD-1, PD-L2, and LAG-3) and their association with PD-L1. We also assessed angiogenic markers and their association with PD-L1.

RESULTS

Overall, 27.9 % of tumors were PD-L1 positive. PD-L2 was more frequently expressed (45.6 %), PD-1 and LAG-3 were positive in 17.6 % and 19.1 % respectively. None of these markers was correlated with PD-L1 expression. 66 % (45/68) expressed at least one immune marker, and 43 % (29/68) were "double-positive", as they expressed both immune and angiogenic markers. OS was significantly shorter for patients with PD-L1 positive pRCC. A multivariate analysis confirmed a significant association between PD-L1 expression and shorter overall survival (HR = 4.0, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

These results reinforce clinical data on the expected benefit of ICI in metastatic pRCC treatment, as PD-L1 expression is a factor of poor prognosis in this multicenter cohort.

Expression of nectin-4 in papillary renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Nectin-4 contributes to tumor proliferation, lymphangiogenesis and angiogenesis in malignant tumors and is an emerging target in tumor therapy. In renal cell carcinoma (RCC) VEGF-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitors and checkpoint inhibitors are currently treatments of choice. Enfortumab vedotin-ejf (EV) is an antibody drug conjugate that targets Nectin-4. The aim of our study was to investigate the expression of Nectin-4 in a large cohort of papillary RCC specimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Specimens were derived from the PANZAR consortium (Erlangen, Heidelberg, Herne, Homburg, Mainz, Mannheim, Marburg, Muenster, LMU Munich, TU Munich, and Regensburg). Clinical data and tissue samples from n = 190 and n = 107 patients with type 1 and 2 pRCC, respectively, were available. Expression of Nectin-4 was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC).

RESULTS

In total, Nectin-4 staining was moderately or strongly positive in of 92 (48.4%) of type 1 and 39 (36.4%) type 2 of pRCC cases. No associations between Nectin-4 expression and age at diagnosis, gender, grading, and TNM stage was found. 5 year overall survival rate was not statistically different in patients with Nectin-4 negative versus Nectin-4 positive tumors for the overall cohort and the pRCC type 2 subgroup, but higher in patient with Nectin-4 positive pRCC type 1 tumors compared to Nectin-4 negative tumors (81.3% vs. 67.8%, p = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

Nectin-4 could not be confirmed as a prognostic marker in pRCC in general. Due to its high abundance on pRCC specimens Nectin-4 is an interesting target for therapeutical approaches e.g. with EV. Clinical trials are warranted to elucidate its role in the pRCC treatment landscape.

Systematic Review of Treatment of Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background: Metastatic and unresectable non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma comprises more than a quarter of kidney cancers but does not have standardized treatment. Non-clear renal carcinoma consists of a variety of diverse histologic subtypes, including papillary, chromophobe, collecting duct, translocation, and medullary histologies, many of which carry a poor prognosis. Many prospective clinical trials exclude these kidney cancers, and for most clinical trials of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, only a small number of patients are enrolled. Objective: To perform a systematic review of recently published and currently enrolling prospective clinical trials for advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Methods: A systematic search of Pubmed and MEDLINE (Ovid) was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines to identify recent prospective clinical trials in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. To ensure a thorough search, terms not only included non-clear cell renal carcinoma but also molecular subtypes. A review of currently enrolling clinical trials was conducted on Clinicaltrials.gov and the EU Clinical Trials Register as well. Results: A total of 33 prospective clinical trials with published results and 10 currently enrolling clinicals trials were identified. About half (48.5%) of these studies were reported in 2020 or 2021, and 36.4% were in the first-line setting. Treatments investigated in these trials included mTOR inhibitors, VEGF- and MET-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and combinatorial strategies. Outcomes from these data revealed a wide range of response rate and progression free survival, favoring TKIs and immune checkpoint inhibitors -based combination regimens. Conclusions: Novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies have changed the landscape of treatment for advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Combination regimens may provide even further clinical benefit and warrant further investigation in larger, randomized prospective clinical trials.

cMET - a prognostic marker in papillary renal cell carcinoma?

BACKGROUND

The tyrosine-protein kinase c-Met plays a decisive role in numerous cellular processes, as a proto-oncogene that supports aggressive tumor behavior. It is still unknown whether c-Met could be relevant for prognosis of papillary RCC (pRCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Specimen collection were a collaboration of the PANZAR consortium. Patients' medical history and tumor specimens were collected from n=197 and n=110 patients with type 1 and 2 pRCC, respectively. Expression of cMET was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC).

RESULTS

In total, cMET staining was evaluable in of 97/197 type 1 and 63/110 type 2 of pRCC cases. Five-years overall survival reviled no significant difference in dependence of cMET positivity (cMET^- vs. cMET⁺: pRCC type 1: 84.8 % vs. 80.3 %, respectively (p=0.303, log-rank); type 2: 71.4 % vs. 64.4 % respectively (p= 0.239, log-rank)). Interestingly, the subgroup analyses showed a significant difference for cMET expression in T stage and metastases of the pRCC type 2 (p=0.014, p=0.022, chi-square). The cMET positive type 2 collective developed more metastases compared to the cMET negative cohort (pRCC Typ 2 M+: cMET^-: 2 (4.3%) vs. cMET⁺: 12 (19%)).

CONCLUSION

CMET expression did not qualify as a prognostic marker in pRCC for overall survival.

Everolimus or sunitinib as first-line treatment of metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective study of the GETUG group (Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Génitales)

BACKGROUND

Two phase II trials (NCT00688753 and NCT00541008) reported efficacy data of sunitinib and everolimus in first-line treatment of metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (mpRCC). Although most patients receive sunitinib or a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor in first- and second-line treatment, the optimal strategy remained unknown.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In 23 centres of the Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Urogénitales group, after centralised pathological review, we analysed retrospectively progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with mpRCC treated in first-line treatment (PFS-1) with sunitinib or everolimus (primary end-point), PFS in second-line treatment (PFS-2), overall survival (OS), objective response rate, disease control rate (DCR), overall sequence and prognostic factors for OS (secondary end-points).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight patients (119 men and 19 women), median age 62.5 years, with mpRCC type 1 (n = 24) or non-type 1 (n = 114), received first-line sunitinib (n = 107) or everolimus (n = 31). With a median follow-up of 92 months, we found no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of PFS-1 (5.5 versus 6.2 months) and DCR (69% versus 83%). Ninety-eight patients received a second-line treatment, 69% with mTOR inhibitors after sunitinib and 100% with tyrosine kinase inhibitors after everolimus, with similar DCR (64% versus 58%), median PFS-2 (3.4 versus 4.8 months) and OS (16.0 versus 20.3 months). No factor was prognostic for PFS-1, whereas leukocytosis, anaemia and the time from diagnosis to first systemic therapy < 1 year were prognostic for OS. We found no prognostic difference between both pRCC subtypes. The International Metastatic Renal Cell Database Consortium risk factors were prognostic for OS.

CONCLUSION

Sunitinib and everolimus had similar efficacy in first-line treatment of patients with mpRCC.