Second-line targeted therapies after nivolumab-ipilimumab failure in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Multidisciplinary systemic and local therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Systemic and local therapies for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are often challenging despite the evolution of multimodal cancer therapies in the last decade. In this review, we will focus on recent multidisciplinary approaches for patients with mRCC.

AREAS COVERED

Systemic therapies for patients with mRCC have been garnering attention particularly after the approval of immuno-oncology (IO) agents, including anti-programmed death 1/programmed death-ligand 1. IO combinations have significantly prolonged overall survival in patients with mRCC in the first-line setting. Regarding local therapies, cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has become less common in the post-Cancer du Rein Metastatique Nephrectomie et Antiangiogéniques (CARMENA) trial era, even though CN may still benefit selected patients with mRCC. In addition, metastasis-directed local therapies, namely metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy, particularly for oligo-metastatic lesions or brain metastases, may have a prognostic impact. Several ablative techniques are also evolving while maintaining high local control rates with acceptable safety.

EXPERT OPINION

Multimodal cancer therapies are essential for conquering complex cases of mRCC. Modern systemic therapies including IO-based combination therapy as well as local therapies including CN, metastasectomy, stereotactic radiotherapy, and ablative techniques appear to improve oncologic outcomes of patients with mRCC, although appropriate patient selection is indispensable.

Prognostic outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving second-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitor following first-line immune-oncology combination therapy

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the prognostic outcomes in mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI following first-line IO combination therapy.

METHODS

This study retrospectively included 243 mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI after first-line IO combination therapy: nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 189, IO-IO group) and either pembrolizumab plus axitinib or avelumab plus axitinib (n = 54, IO-TKI group). Oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared, and prognostication systems were developed for these patients.

RESULTS

In the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups, the objective response rates to second-line TKI were 34.4% and 25.9% (p = 0.26), the median PFS periods were 9.7 and 7.1 months (p = 0.79), and the median OS periods after the introduction of second-line TKI were 23.1 and 33.5 months (p = 0.93), respectively. Among the several factors examined, non-CCRCC, high CRP, and low albumin levels were identified as independent predictors of both poor PFS and OS by multivariate analyses. It was possible to precisely classify the patients into 3 risk groups regarding both PFS and OS according to the positive numbers of the independent prognostic factors. Furthermore, the c-indices of this study were superior to those of previous systems as follows: 0.75, 0.64, and 0.61 for PFS prediction and 0.76, 0.70, and 0.65 for OS prediction by the present, IMDC, and MSKCC systems, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in the prognostic outcomes after introducing second-line TKI between the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups, and the histopathology, CRP and albumin levels had independent impacts on the prognosis in mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI, irrespective of first-line IO combination therapies.

Comparison of Cabozantinib and Axitinib as Second-line Therapy After Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparative Analysis of Retrospective Real-world Data

BACKGROUND

To date, no studies have compared the treatment outcomes of second-line therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line treatments in patients with metastatic ccRCC who previously received immune-oncology combination therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment were identified among 243 patients with RCC treated between August 1, 2018 and January 31, 2022 at 34 institutions belonging to the Japanese Urological Oncology Group. Patients were assessed for treatment outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and incidence rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients treated with cabozantinib and 60 treated with axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment for metastatic ccRCC were identified. The median PFS (95% confidence interval) was 11.0 months (9.0-16.0) with cabozantinib and 9.5 months (6.0-13.0) with axitinib. The ORRs were 37.5% (cabozantinib) and 38.3% (axitinib). The rates of any-grade AEs and grade ≥3 AEs were 79.2% (cabozantinib) versus 63.3% (axitinib; P = .091) and 35.4% (cabozantinib) versus 23.3% (axitinib; P = .202), respectively. In the poor-risk group, PFS was longer in the cabozantinib group than in the axitinib group (P = .033).

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and axitinib were comparable. In the poor-risk group, cabozantinib was more effective than axitinib. These findings provide valuable insights into the selection of second-line treatment options after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment in patients with metastatic ccRCC.

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.

Navigating the ICI Combination Treatment Journey: Patterns of Response and Progression to First-Line ICI-Based Combination Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or other ICIs has significantly improved the prognosis for patients with mccRCC. This marks a major milestone in the treatment of mccRCC. Nonetheless, most patients will discontinue first-line therapy. In this narrative review, we analyze the different patterns of treatment discontinuation in the four pivotal phase III trials that have shown an improvement in overall survival in mccRCC first-line therapy, starting from 1 January 2017 to 1 June 2023. We highlight the different discontinuation scenarios and their influences on subsequent treatment options, aiming to provide more data to clinicians to navigate a complex decision-making process through a narrative review approach. We have identified several causes for discontinuations for patients treated with ICI-based combinations, such as interruption for drug-related adverse events, ICI treatment completion, treatment discontinuation due to complete response or maximum clinical benefit, or due to progression (pseudoprogression, systemic progression, and oligoprogression); for each case, an extensive analysis of the trials and current medical review has been conducted.

Vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma pretreated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify evidence for use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based therapy.

METHODS

This was a PRISMA-standard systematic literature review; registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255568). Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (January 28, 2021; updated September 13, 2022) to identify publications reporting efficacy/effectiveness and safety/tolerability evidence for anti-VEGF treatment in patients with RCC who had received prior CPI therapy.

RESULTS

Of 2,639 publications screened, 48 were eligible and featured 2,759 patients treated in trials and 2,209 in real-world studies (RWS). Most patients with available data were treated with anti-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens (trials: 93 %; RWS: 100 %), most commonly cabozantinib, which accounted for 46 % of trial and 62 % of RWS patients in publications with available data. Collectively, there was consistent evidence of anti-VEGF treatment activity after prior CPI therapy. Activity was reported for all anti-VEGF regimens and regardless of prior CPI-based regimen. No new safety signals were detected for subsequent anti-VEGF therapy; no studies suggested increased immune-related adverse events associated with prior CPI therapy. The results were limited by data quality; study heterogeneity prohibited meta-analyses.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available data (most commonly for cabozantinib), anti-VEGF therapy appears to be a rational treatment choice in patients with RCC who have progressed despite prior CPI-based therapy. Results from ongoing trials of combination anti-VEGF plus CPI regimen post prior CPI therapy trials will contribute more definitive evidence.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Anticancer treatments that work by reducing levels of a substance in the body called Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor are known as anti-VEGF drugs. Reducing VEGF levels helps to reduce blood supply to tumors, which can slow the speed at which the cancer grows. Some other types of anticancer drugs that help the immune system to fight cancer cells are called checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we looked at published studies that investigated how anti-VEGF drugs work, and what side effects they cause, in people who have already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors for a type of kidney cancer called renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to summarize the available evidence to help doctors decide how best to use anti-VEGF drugs in these patients. We found 48 studies that included almost 5,000 patients. The results of the studies showed that anti-VEGF drugs have anticancer effects in people with renal cell carcinoma who had already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors. All of the VEGF-targeting drugs had anticancer effects, irrespective of what checkpoint inhibitor treatment people had received before. There were different amounts of evidence available for the different anti-VEGF drugs. The anti-VEGF cabozantinib had the largest amount of evidence. Importantly, previous checkpoint inhibitor treatment did not seem to affect the number or type of side-effects associated with anti-VEGF drugs. Results from ongoing, well-designed studies will be helpful to confirm these results. Our findings may be useful for doctors considering using anti-VEGF drugs in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have received checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

SEOM SOGUG clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2022)

Renal cancer is the seventh most common cancer in men and the tenth in women. The aim of this article is to review the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of renal carcinoma accompanied by recommendations with new evidence and treatment algorithms. A new pathologic classification of RCC by the World Health Organization (WHO) was published in 2022 and this classification would be considered a "bridge" to a future molecular classification. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab is an option for intermediate-or high-risk cases, as well as patients after complete resection of metastatic disease. More data are needed in the future, including positive overall survival data. Clinical prognostic classification, preferably IMDC, should be used for treatment decision making in mRCC. Cytoreductive nephrectomy should not be deemed mandatory in individuals with intermediate-poor IMDC/MSKCC risk who require systemic therapy. Metastasectomy can be contemplated in selected subjects with a limited number of metastases or long metachronous disease-free interval. For the population of patients with metastatic ccRCC as a whole, the combination of pembrolizumab-axitinib, nivolumab-cabozantinib, or pembrolizumab-lenvatinib can be considered as the first option based on the benefit obtained in OS versus sunitinib. In cases that have an intermediate IMDC and poor prognosis, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has demonstrated superior OS compared to sunitinib. As for individuals with advanced RCC previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, nivolumab and cabozantinib are the options of choice. When there is progression following initial immunotherapy-based treatment, we recommend treatment with an antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. While no clear sequence can be advocated, medical oncologists and patients should be aware of the recent advances and new strategies that improve survival and quality of life in the setting of metastatic RC.

Trends of Utilization of Systemic Therapies for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Canadian Health Care System

PURPOSE

Standard-of-care therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have greatly evolved. However, the availability of emerging options in global health care systems can vary. We sought to describe the integration and usage of systemic therapies for mRCC in Canada since 2011.

METHODS

We included patients with mRCC enrolled in the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System, a prospective cohort of patients from 14 Canadian academic centers, who received systemic therapy from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2021. Patients were stratified by treatment era (cohort 1: 2011-2015, cohort 2: 2016-2021). Stacked bar charts were used to present treatment proportions; Sankey diagrams were used to show the evolution of treatment sequencing between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

Four thousand one hundred seven patients were diagnosed with mRCC, of whom 2,752 (67%) received systemic therapy. Among these patients, mean age was 64 years, 74% were male, 75% had clear cell histology, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk classification was favorable, intermediate, and poor in 16%, 56%, and 28%, respectively. Utilization of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI)-based treatments has increased in Canada and reflects global and local patterns of approval and adoption. The use of therapies after doublet ICI has mostly shifted toward vascular endothelial growth factor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) that were previously used in first line with subsequent treatments reflecting approved and available agents after previous VEGF-TKI. Clinical trial participation among patients who received systemic therapy was 18% in first, 21% in second, and 24% in third line.

CONCLUSION

In Canada's publicly funded health care system, availability of standard mRCC therapies broadly reflects access from government-funded clinical trials and compassionate access program sources. In an evolving therapeutic landscape, ongoing advocacy is required to continue to facilitate patient access to efficacious therapies.

Immune-related risk prognostic model for clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Implications for immunotherapy

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is associated with complex immune interactions. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of immune-related differentially expressed genes in patients with ccRCC using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and ImmPort databases. The immune-related differentially expressed genes underwent functional and pathway enrichment analysis, followed by COX regression combined with LASSO regression to construct an immune-related risk prognostic model. The model comprised 4 IRGs: CLDN4, SEMA3G, CAT, and UCN. Patients were stratified into high-risk and low-risk groups based on the median risk score, and the overall survival rate of the high-risk group was significantly lower than that of the low-risk group, confirming the reliability of the model from various perspectives. Further comparison of immune infiltration, tumor mutation load, and immunophenoscore (IPS) comparison between the 2 groups indicates that the high-risk group could potentially demonstrate a heightened sensitivity towards immunotherapy checkpoints PD-1, CTLA-4, IL-6, and LAG3 in ccRCC patients. The proposed model not only applies to ccRCC but also shows potential in developing into a prognostic model for renal cancer, thus introducing a novel approach for personalized immunotherapy in ccRCC.

Evolving Treatment Options for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC)

Approximately a third of patients diagnosed with kidney cancer in the United States present with advanced disease and those who present with distant metastases historically had dismal 5-year relative survival. However, over the last several years, advancements have led to improved life expectancy and patient outcomes in those who develop advanced renal cell carcinoma. Metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) treatment has rapidly evolved with multiple drug approvals since 2006. Moreover, multiple combination regimens including a vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGF-TKI) plus immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and the combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab have supplanted first-line VEGF-TKI monotherapy. Thus, the insights we gained from prospective randomized controlled trials focusing on systemic therapy beyond first-line therapy in mRCC patients treated in the TKI monotherapy era quickly became less relevant with the adoption of contemporary first-line combination regimens. Herein, we will review contemporary first- and second-line therapies for mccRCC, as well as highly anticipated clinical trials looking into novel regimens beyond first-line therapy in patients who have received combination therapy.

A multicenter phase 2 single arm study of cabozantinib in patients with advanced or unresectable renal cell carcinoma pre-treated with one immune-checkpoint inhibitor: The BREAKPOINT trial (Meet-Uro trial 03)

BACKGROUND

First-line therapies based on immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly improved survival of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Cabozantinib was shown to target kinases involved in immune-escape and to prolong survival in patients pre-treated with tyrosine-kinase-inhibitors (TKIs). The impact of ICIs combinations in first line on subsequent therapies is still unclear.

METHODS

This is an open label, multicenter, single arm, phase II study designed to assess activity, safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in mRCC patients progressed after an adjuvant or first line anti-Programmed Death (PD)-1/PD-Ligand (PD-L) 1-based therapy. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety.

RESULTS

31 patients were included in the analysis. After a median (m) follow-up of 11.9 months, mPFS was 8.3 months (90%CI 3.9-17.4) and mOS was 13.8 months (95%CI 7.7-29.0). ORR was 37.9% with an additional 13 patients achieving disease stability. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 47% of patients, including more frequently creatine phosphokinase (CPK) serum level elevation, neutropenia, hyponatremia, diarrhea, hand-food syndrome, oral mucositis and hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

The BREAKPOINT trial met its primary endpoint showing that cabozantinib as second line therapy after ICIs was active in mRCC. Safety profile was manageable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03463681 - A Study of CaBozantinib in Patients With Advanced or Unresectable Renal cEll cArcinoma (BREAKPOINT) - https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03463681.

Outcomes With Combination Pembrolizumab and Axitinib in Second and Further Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Combination immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-R-TKI), including pembrolizumab/axitinib, are approved for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pembrolizumab/axitinib is associated with superior progression free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival over sunitinib. However, to date, the activity and safety of pembrolizumab/axitinib in later lines of therapy has not been reported.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data of consecutive patients receiving pembrolizumab/axitinib in the second-line or beyond for mRCC at Yale-New Haven Hospital were retrospectively collected. Best objective response was assessed using RECIST 1.1 criteria. Kaplan-Meier function was used to analyze survival.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients were included. Median age was 64, 92.1% had clear cell mRCC, 18.4% had sarcomatoid dedifferentiation; 94.7% had prior ICI and 39.5% had prior VEGF-R-TKI. Pembrolizumab/axitinib was administered as second-line therapy in 21 (55.5%) patients, third-line in 5 (13.2%) and beyond in 12 (30.2%). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86.8% of patients. Grade 3-4 AEs attributed to pembrolizumab and axitinib were seen in 18.4% and 6.4% of patients, respectively. No grade 5 AEs occurred. At a median follow up of 17.1 months, median PFS was 9.7 months (95% CI, 4.1-15.3). Amongst 36 response evaluable patients, the ORR was 25.0% (all partial) and disease control rate (including stable disease for at least 6 months) was 66.6%. The most frequent treatment sequence was first-line nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by second-line pembrolizumab/axitinib (n = 17, 44.7%); among this cohort, median PFS with pembrolizumab/axitinib was 11.1 (95% CI, 8.4-13.7) months, with an ORR of 31.4%.

CONCLUSION

Combination pembrolizumab/axitinib among previously treated mRCC patients has activity, with AE rates comparable to those reported in the first line. Prospective studies evaluating ICI-VEGF-R-TKI combinations beyond first-line are warranted to identify the most beneficial treatment sequencing in mRCC.

Dissection of tumor antigens and immune landscape in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Preconditions for development and precision medicine of mRNA vaccine

Accumulating evidence reveals that mRNA-type cancer vaccines could be exploited as cancer immunotherapies in various solid tumors. However, the use of mRNA-type cancer vaccines in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remains unclear. This study aimed to identify potential tumor antigens for the development of an anti-ccRCC mRNA vaccine. In addition, this study aimed to determine immune subtypes of ccRCC to guide the selection of patients to receive the vaccine. Raw sequencing and clinical data were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Further, the cBioPortal website was used to visualize and compare genetic alterations. GEPIA2 was employed to evaluate the prognostic value of preliminary tumor antigens. Moreover, the TIMER web server was used to evaluate correlations between the expression of specific antigens and the abundance of infiltrated antigen-presenting cells (APCs). Single-cell RNA sequencing data of ccRCC was used to explore the expression of potential tumor antigens at single-cell resolution. The immune subtypes of patients were analyzed by the consensus clustering algorithm. Furthermore, the clinical and molecular discrepancies were further explored for a deep understanding of the immune subtypes. Weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) was used to cluster the genes according to the immune subtypes. Finally, the sensitivity of drugs commonly used in ccRCC with diverse immune subtypes was investigated. The results revealed that the tumor antigen, LRP2, was associated with a good prognosis and enhanced the infiltration of APCs. ccRCC could be divided into two immune subtypes (IS1 and IS2) with distinct clinical and molecular characteristics. The IS1 group showed a poorer overall survival with an immune-suppressive phenotype than the IS2 group. Additionally, a large spectrum of differences in the expression of immune checkpoints and immunogenic cell death modulators were observed between the two subtypes. Lastly, the genes correlated with the immune subtypes were involved in multiple immune-related processes. Therefore, LRP2 is a potential tumor antigen that could be used to develop an mRNA-type cancer vaccine in ccRCC. Furthermore, patients in the IS2 group were more suitable for vaccination than those in the IS1 group.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Molecular-Targeted Therapy after Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study

Simple Summary

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of molecular-targeted therapies (MTTs) in 29 patients who discontinued the combination therapy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma as real-world outcomes. Patients receiving MTTs had a median follow-up of 8 months. The objective response rate was 44.8%, and the disease control rate was 72.4%. After NIVO+IPI, the median overall survival was 18 months, and progression-free survival (PFS) was 8 months. Patients with bone metastases had a significantly shorter median PFS when treated with MTTs after NIVO+IPI than those without bone metastases (4 vs. 12 months, p = 0.012). MTTs may be a useful secondary treatment option after the discontinuation of NIVO+IPI.

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of molecular-targeted therapies (MTTs) after the discontinuation of nivolumab and ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) combination therapy in patients who had been diagnosed with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma as real-world outcomes. We enrolled patients treated with MTTs following initial therapy with NIVO+IPI at nine institutions in Japan. We evaluated the objective response rate (ORR) as the primary endpoint and disease control rate (DCR), best overall response, and oncological outcomes (overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)) as the secondary endpoints. We also evaluated factors predictive of disease progression after the administration of MTTs. Patients were followed up for a median of 8 months. The ORR was 44.8%, and the DCR was 72.4%. The median OS and PFS of MTTs after NIVO+IPI were 18 months and 8 months, respectively. A total of 31% of patients experienced grade 3/4 MTT-related adverse events. The median PFS in patients with bone metastases was significantly shorter than that in those without bone metastases (4 vs. 12 months, p = 0.012). MTTs may be a useful secondary treatment option after the discontinuation of NIVO+IPI.

Real-world effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and second-line therapy in Japanese untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: 2-year analysis from a multicenter retrospective clinical study (J-cardinal study)

Background

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy is one of the standard therapies for untreated renal cell carcinoma patients with an International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor risk. We have previously reported the 1-year analysis results of the effectiveness and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in the real-world setting in Japan. Here, we report the effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy and of second-line therapy, using 2-year analysis.

Methods

This retrospective observational study enrolled Japanese patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma who initiated nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy between August 2018 and January 2019. Data were collected from patients’ medical records at baseline and at 3 months, 1 year and 2 years after the last enrollment.

Results

Of the 45 patients enrolled, 10 patients (22.2%) each had non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2 at baseline. Median follow-up period was 24.0 months; objective response rate was 41.5%, with 6 patients achieving complete response; median progression-free survival was 17.8 months and 24-month progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 41.6 and 59.1%, respectively. Second-line therapy achieved an objective response rate of 20%; median progression-free survival was 9.8 months. Median progression-free survival 2 was 26.4 months.

Conclusions

The effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy at 2-year analysis in the real-world setting in Japan was comparable to that reported in CheckMate 214. The current analysis also demonstrated the effectiveness of second-line therapy after nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy.

TKIs beyond immunotherapy predict improved survival in advanced HCC

PURPOSE

For patients with advanced HCC, predictors of immunotherapy response are scarce, and the benefits of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment after immunotherapy are unclear. We explored whether clinical features, such as target lesion response, immune-mediated toxicity, or subsequent TKI therapy predict immunotherapy response.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 77 patients with advanced HCC receiving immunotherapy. Patient characteristics and outcomes were assessed using various statistical methods, including the log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used for multivariable survival analysis.

RESULTS

For all patients, median overall survival (mOS) was 13 months (95% CI 8-19), and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6 months (95% CI 4-10). Patients with partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD) compared to progressive disease (PD) had prolonged mPFS (27 vs. 5 vs. 1 month(s), p < 0.0001) and mOS (not met vs. 11 vs. 3 months, p < 0.0001). Patients with vs. without immune-mediated toxicities trended towards longer mPFS (9 vs. 4 months p = 0.133) and mOS (17 vs. 9 months; p = 0.095). Patients who did vs. did not receive a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) after immunotherapy had a significantly improved mOS (19 vs. 5 months, p = 0.0024)). Based on multivariate modeling, the hazard ratio (HR) of overall survival (OS) of patients receiving TKI vs. no TKI was 0.412 (p = 0.0043).

CONCLUSION

We show that disease control predicts prolonged mOS and mPFS. Furthermore, TKI therapy administered after immunotherapy predicts prolonged mOS in patients with advanced HCC.

An Evaluation of Cabozantinib for the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma: Focus on Patient Selection and Perspectives

Cabozantinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with activity against several receptors involved in the angiogenesis pathway, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), c-MET and AXL. The antiangiogenic properties of cabozantinib led to its use as a monotherapy for the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC), and quickly resulted in this treatment becoming part of the standard of care for these tumors. Since the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), new standards of care have emerged in first-line settings, involving dual ICI or ICI–VEGF-TKI (including ICI–cabozantinib) combination treatments, and leading to a more complex algorithm of care. Cabozantinib remains an option in second-line settings and is still a first-line standard of care treatment in cases where the use of ICIs is contraindicated. This review focuses on the selection of patients who may benefit most from cabozantinib therapy, including those with bone and brain metastases and those with a non-clear cell RCC histology. The need to consider disease-related symptoms, comorbidities, age, drug interactions and biomarker analyses in the choice of therapeutic strategy is also highlighted. Finally, the perspectives for the use of cabozantinib in RCC treatment are discussed.

Outcomes of nivolumab monotherapy for previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a real-world multi-institution data with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the long-term follow-up outcomes of nivolumab monotherapy for previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma, using real-world data.

METHODS

A total of 121 patients were treated with nivolumab monotherapy as subsequent therapy after the failure of prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy between January 2013 and December 2021 at four affiliated institutions. To evaluate the outcome after 2 years or more, we selected patients in whom nivolumab therapy was started in December 2019 or earlier because data collection was performed until the end of December 2021.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were evaluated. During the median follow-up period of 25.8 months, 62 (84%) and 40 (54%) patients had disease progression and died, respectively. Nivolumab was administered as second-line therapy in 43 patients (58%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.52 and 31.1 months, respectively, and objective response rate was 36%. There was no difference in progression-free survival or overall survival based on the treatment line of nivolumab (P = 0.915, P = 0.559). The magnitude of tumor response and development of immune-related adverse events were significantly associated with progression-free survival (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, respectively) and overall survival (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0002, respectively). Treatment-related adverse events developed in 38 patients (51%), including 33 (45%) who had immune-related adverse events. Steroid administration was needed in nine patients (12%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present real-world multi-institution study with long-term follow-up data demonstrates that nivolumab monotherapy is effective for previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma, prolonging survival, improving tumor response and has a manageable safety profile.

Results from the INMUNOSUN-SOGUG trial: a prospective phase II study of sunitinib as a second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after immune checkpoint-based combination therapy

Background

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

•

ICI-based combinations have become the first-line treatment for mRCC.

•

We evaluated sunitinib as a second-line treatment in patients with mRCC who progressed to first-line ICI-based treatment.

•

OR was achieved by 4/21 patients (19.0%, 95% CI 2.3% to 35.8%). Median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI 3.1-8.0 months).

•

The toxicity profile of sunitinib was consistent with previously reported data. No new safety signals were detected.

•

Sunitinib is active and can be safely used as second-line therapy in patients with mRCC who progress to ICI-based regimens.

Cabozantinib-Induced Severe Cardiac Dysfunction: A Case Report and a Systematic Review of the Literature

Cabozantinib is a novel multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor commonly used to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma. Cardiotoxicity is not a previously well-described adverse effect of cabozantinib. We present a rare case of a 74-year-old male with a history of renal cell carcinoma who underwent partial nephrectomy. The patient had been recently started on cabozantinib for advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma. He developed acute onset of heart failure and subclinical hypothyroidism within nine months of treatment. Our case report postulates a causal relationship between cabozantinib and the development of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Starting Doses of Lenvatinib Plus Everolimus in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial

BACKGROUND

Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) is approved for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one or more prior antiangiogenic therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether a lower starting dose of lenvatinib has comparable efficacy with improved tolerability for patients with advanced RCC treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized, open-label, phase 2 global trial was conducted in patients with advanced clear cell RCC and disease progression after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (prior anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 therapy permitted).

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the 14- or 18-mg lenvatinib starting dose, both in combination with everolimus 5 mg/d. Patients in the 14-mg arm were to be uptitrated to lenvatinib 18 mg at cycle 2, day 1, barring intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) requiring dose reduction occurring in the first 28-d cycle.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) as of week 24 (ORR_wk24); the noninferiority threshold of the 14- versus 18-mg arm was p ≤ 0.045. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients with intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs within 24 wk of randomization.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The ORR_wk24 for the 14-mg arm (32% [95% confidence interval {CI} 25-39]) was not noninferior to the ORR_wk24 in the 18-mg arm (35% [95% CI 27-42]; odds ratio: 0.88; 90% CI 0.59-1.32; p = 0.3). The proportion of intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs was similar between the two arms (14 mg, 83% vs 18 mg, 80%; p = 0.5). The secondary endpoints of overall ORR, progression-free survival, and overall survival numerically favored the 18-mg arm. A limitation of this study was that the study design did not allow for a full comparison of progression-free survival between treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings support the approved dosing regimen of lenvatinib 18 mg plus everolimus 5 mg daily for patients with advanced RCC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report, we examined two doses of lenvatinib (the approved 18-mg dose and a lower dose of 14 mg) in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma to determine whether the lower dose (which was increased to the approved 18-mg dose after the first treatment cycle) could improve safety without affecting efficacy. The results showed that the efficacy of the lower lenvatinib dose (14 mg) was not the same as that of the approved (18 mg) dose, although safety results were similar, so the approved lenvatinib 18-mg dose should still be used.

Salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A meta-analysis

Background

Salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab after prior anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 therapy is frequently used off‐label for clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, limited data are available to guide such therapy. We performed a meta‐analysis to characterize further the safety and efficacy of salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA. Studies of salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with mRCC published in English before June 1, 2021 were included. We also included patients treated at the Ohio State University from 2012 to 2020 through a retrospective chart review. The included studies were further stratified into adaptive and standard groups based on their designs. We calculated objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs) via pooled data and quantitative synthesis using the Stata metaprop procedure. A conservative random effect model was used to combine values.

Results

A total of 7 studies and 310 patients were included. Salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab had an ORR of 14% (95% CI, 0.09–0.21) and median progression‐free survival ranged between 3.7 and 5.5 months. Four out of the seven studies were standard design, whereas the other three studies were adaptive. The ORR was numerically higher in the standard group compared with the adaptive group (21% and 9–10%, respectively). The responses to salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab did not correlate with the initial anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 responses (odds ratio = 1.45; p = 0.5). Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 26% of the patients (95% CI, 0.19–0.33). There were no new safety signals observed in this study.

Conclusion

Salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab demonstrated moderate antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with mRCC who had prior anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 therapy.

Implication for Practice

Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma have limited treatment options after progressive disease on anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 therapy. The role of salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab in this patient population is poorly defined. The studies on this highly important and clinically relevant topic are limited by small sample sizes. The results from our meta‐analysis suggest that nivolumab and ipilimumab are feasible in the salvage setting with moderate efficacy and acceptable toxicity profile. The response rates differ with different treatment designs. This information will be beneficial to guide clinical decision‐making and accurately estimating toxicity.

Disseminated intravascular coagulation induced by pazopanib following combination therapy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in a patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Recently, combination therapy including immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has proven to be effective as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Although the first-line combination therapies with ICI have shown clinical benefit, a number of patients require second-line treatment. We report a 60-year-old man with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who was treated with pazopanib soon after nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy. He experienced Grade 3 disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). We suspect that this was caused by an interaction between pazopanib and nivolumab even though ICI therapy was discontinued. He was treated with thrombomodulin and platelet transfusion and recovered from DIC. Treatment with pazopanib was subsequently restarted. No evidence of DIC was observed thereafter. This severe adverse reaction may have been induced by an interaction between activated proinflammatory immune cells and cytokines from an exacerbated inflammatory state and pazopanib. This report highlights the need to perform careful monitoring of patients who receive molecular targeted therapy after ICI-based immunotherapy.

The Role of Circulating Biomarkers in the Oncological Management of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Where Do We Stand Now?

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is an increasingly common malignancy that can progress to metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in approximately one-third of RCC patients. The 5-year survival rate for mRCC is abysmally low, and, at the present time, there are sparingly few if any effective treatments. Current surgical and pharmacological treatments can have a long-lasting impact on renal function, as well. Thus, there is a compelling unmet need to discover novel biomarkers and surveillance methods to improve patient outcomes with more targeted therapies earlier in the course of the disease. Circulating biomarkers, such as circulating tumor DNA, noncoding RNA, proteins, extracellular vesicles, or cancer cells themselves potentially represent a minimally invasive tool to fill this gap and accelerate both diagnosis and treatment. Here, we discuss the clinical relevance of different circulating biomarkers in metastatic renal cell carcinoma by clarifying their potential role as novel biomarkers of response or resistance to treatments but also by guiding clinicians in novel therapeutic approaches.

Combination Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma: the Best Choice for Every Patient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Therapeutic alternatives to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are increasing, and combination therapies, including antiangiogenic agents and tyrosine kinase/mTOR/immune checkpoint inhibitors, are identified as the gold standard driven by the results of recent clinical studies. Nevertheless, the real-world RCC population is very heterogeneous, with categories of patients not represented in the enrolled trial population who may not benefit more from these treatments. The purpose of this expert review is to assess the rationale on which tyrosine kinase alone may still be a viable first-line treatment option for some subgroups of patients with mRCC.

RECENT FINDINGS

The first-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy can still be considered an effective tool for addressing selected mRCCs, as highlighted by the successful outcome in a range of subjects such as favorable-risk patients, the ones suffering from autoimmune diseases, those with pancreatic or lung metastases, or previously undergoing organ transplantation and elderly subjects. Some selected categories of patients may still benefit from monotherapy with TKI, and smart sequential therapies can also be considered instead of a combination strategy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors can also act as immune modulator agents, boosting the immune response to facilitate and potentiate the therapeutic effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy.

Antiangiogenic Properties of Axitinib versus Sorafenib Following Sunitinib Resistance in Human Endothelial Cells-A View towards Second Line Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatment

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors predominate as first-line therapy options for renal cell carcinoma. When first-line TKI therapy fails due to resistance development, an optimal second-line therapy has not yet been established. The present investigation is directed towards comparing the anti-angiogenic properties of the TKIs, sorafenib and axitinib on human endothelial cells (HUVECs) with acquired resistance towards the TKI sunitinib. HUVECs were driven to resistance by continuously exposing them to sunitinib for six weeks. They were then switched to a 24 h or further six weeks treatment with sorafenib or axitinib. HUVEC growth, as well as angiogenesis (tube formation and scratch wound assay), were evaluated. Cell cycle proteins of the CDK-cyclin axis (CDK1 and 2, total and phosphorylated, cyclin A and B) and the mTOR pathway (AKT, total and phosphorylated) were also assessed. Axitinib (but not sorafenib) significantly suppressed growth of sunitinib-resistant HUVECs when they were exposed for six weeks. This axinitib-associated growth reduction was accompanied by a cell cycle block at the G0/G1-phase. Both axitinib and sorafenib reduced HUVEC tube length and prevented wound closure (sorafenib > axitinib) when applied to sunitinib-resistant HUVECs for six weeks. Protein analysis revealed diminished phosphorylation of CDK1, CDK2 and pAKT, accompanied by a suppression of cyclin A and B. Both drugs modulated CDK-cyclin and AKT-dependent signaling, associated either with both HUVEC growth and angiogenesis (axitinib) or angiogenesis alone (sorafenib). Axitinib and sorafenib may be equally applicable as second line treatment options, following sunitinib resistance.

First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: What Are the Most Appropriate Combination Therapies?

The development of antiangiogenic treatments, followed by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), has significantly changed the management of metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer. Several phase III trials show the superiority of combination therapy, dual immunotherapy (ICI-ICI) or ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) of the vascular endothelium growth factor (VEGF) over sunitinib monotherapy. The question is therefore what is the best combination for a given patient? A strategy based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) classification is currently recommended with pembrolizumab + axitinib, cabozantinib + nivolumab, and lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (for all patients) or nivolumab + ipilimumab (for patients with intermediate or poor risk), which are the first-line treatment standards of care. However, several issues remain unresolved and require further investigation, such as the PD-L1 status, the relevance of possible options based on the patient's profile, and consideration of second-line and subsequent treatments.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy in combination with non-frontline PD-1 inhibitors and targeted agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy may work synergistically with immunotherapy and targeted agents. We aimed to assess the safety and outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plus non-first-line programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors and targeted agents (TA) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 74 patients treated with non-first-line PD-1 inhibitors plus TA in non-first-line setting. Survival outcomes were calculated from the anti-PD-1 treatment using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Thirty-two (43.2%) patients received anti-PD-1/TA therapy alone (anti-PD-1/TA alone group), and 42 (56.8%) received SBRT in addition (anti-PD-1/TA + SBRT group). The median duration of first-line therapy was 8.6 months. Patients in the anti-PD-1/TA + SBRT group had significantly longer overall survival (OS) (38.5 vs 15.4 months; P = 0.022). On multivariate analysis, oligometastasis, ECOG performance status 0-1, anti-PD-1/TA + SBRT, and duration of first-line therapy ≥ 8.6 months were predictors for OS. The addition of SBRT was associated with improved OS in patients with clear-cell type (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07-0.55; P = 0.002) and duration of first-line therapy ≥ 8.6 months (HR 0.22; 95% CI 0.06-0.88; P = 0.032). Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred in 23 patients (54.8%) in the anti-PD-1/TA + SBRT group, and in 21 patients (65.6%) in the anti-PD-1/TA alone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating SBRT into anti-PD-1/TA therapy is safe and tolerable. Further investigation is needed, particularly in patients with clear-cell histology and a longer duration of response to first-line antiangiogenic therapy.

2021 ASCO genitourinary cancers symposium: a focus on renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium represents an unmissable event for oncologists who deal with renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

AIM AND RESULTS

This article describes the main acquisitions of RCC management, including the advent of a new combo (pembrolizumab+lenvatinib) as first-line therapy, the confirmation of an OS advantage of ICI plus VEGFR-TKI combinations over sunitinib at longer follow-up, the persistent benefit from these combinations in particular subgroups (clear cell mRCC tumors with sarcomatoid differentiation), and possible new approaches in subsequent lines of therapy (including the HIF-2α inhibitor belzutifan).

CONCLUSIONS

This 2021 ASCO Genitourinary Cancer Symposium laid the foundations for further knowledge development necessary for an increasingly personalized management of mRCC.

Median time to progression with TKI-based therapy after failure of immuno-oncology therapy in metastatic kidney cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based therapy after previous immuno-oncology therapy (IO) failure has been addressed before. However, summary efficacy estimates have never been generated in these reports. We addressed this void.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We systematically examined TKI efficacy after IO-failure and generated weighted median progression-free survival (PFS) estimates for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib. A systematic review according to PRISMA was conducted. PubMed and abstracts were queried. Only studies proving median PFS were included. Weighted medians were computed for each TKI alternative.

RESULTS

Of 245 articles, nine eligible studies were included in the current study with 952 analysed patients. Weighted PFS medians after any previous IO-based therapy were respectively 13.7 (range from 4.6 to 24.4), 8.1 (range from 4.7 to 13.2), 8.5 (range from 4.7 to 15.2) and 6.9 months (range from 2.9 to 11.6) for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib. Specific second-line weighted PFS median was 14.8 months (range from 5.6 to 24.4), 10.1 months (range from 6.4 to 13.2), 8.7 months (range from 4.7 to 15.2) and 6.0 months (range from 2.9 to 8.0) for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib, respectively, after first-line IO.

CONCLUSION

Pazopanib results in the longest weighted median PFS, after previous IO-failure, regardless of treatment line, as well as in specific second-line, post-first-line IO failure settings. Pending novel studies, Pazopanib appears to represent the most promising treatment option after prior IO.

Subgroup analysis of the AFTER I-O study: a retrospective study on the efficacy and safety of subsequent molecular targeted therapy after immune-oncology therapy in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background

We performed subgroup analyses of the AFTER I-O study to clarify the association of time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and discontinuation reason of prior immune-oncology (I-O) therapy, and molecular targeted therapy (TT) regimen with the outcomes of TT after I-O.

Methods

The data of Japanese metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with TT after nivolumab (NIVO) (CheckMate 025) or NIVO + ipilimumab (IPI) (CheckMate 214) were retrospectively analyzed. The objective response rates (ORRs), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of TT after I-O were analyzed by subgroups: TTF (<6 or ≥6 months) and discontinuation reason of prior I-O (progression or adverse events), and TT regimen (sunitinib or axitinib). We also analyzed PFS2 of prior I-O and OS from first-line therapy.

Results

The ORR and median PFS of TT after NIVO and NIVO+IPI among the subgroups was 17–36% and 20–44%, and 7.1–11.6 months and 16.3-not reached (NR), respectively. The median OS of TT after NIVO was longer in patients with longer TTF of NIVO and treated with axitinib. Conversely, median OS of TT after NIVO+IPI was similar among subgroups. The median PFS2 of NIVO and NIVO+IPI was 36.7 and 32.0 months, respectively. The median OS from first-line therapy was 70.5 months for patients treated with NIVO and NR with NIVO+IPI. The safety profile of each TT after each I-O was similar to previous reports.

Conclusions

The efficacy of TT after NIVO or NIVO+IPI was favorable regardless of the TTF and discontinuation reason of prior I-O, and TT regimen.

Second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor-therapy after immunotherapy-failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Most contemporary metastatic renal-cell carcinoma patients receive first-line immunotherapy and tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combination or immunotherapy-immunotherapy combination, as first-line standards of care. However, second-line therapy choices are less well established. To address this void, we examined existing evidence supporting second and subsequent-line treatment options after immunotherapy-based combination therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence regarding efficacy of second-line therapy after immunotherapy-based combination is mainly retrospective, except for axitinib, which is the only TKI with prospective efficacy data in this setting. Cabozantinib demonstrated excellent second-line progression-free survival (PFS) that remained in third or later line use, albeit based on small numbers of observations. Moreover, pazopanib demonstrated excellent PFS, but showed wider variability in PFS rates. Sunitinib's PFS rates appeared lower than for axitinib, cabozantinib or pazopanib. Finally, inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway appeared to offer even lower efficacy than any TKI after immunotherapy-based therapy combinations.

SUMMARY

All available contemporary evidence about TKI efficacy after immunotherapy-based therapy combinations is based on institutional studies. No major differences in efficacy for the examined TKIs after immunotherapy-based combination therapies were recorded. In general, these showed similar efficacy to their efficacy data recorded in first-line.

Immunotherapy use outside clinical trial populations: never say never?

BACKGROUND

Based on favourable outcomes in clinical trials, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), most notably programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, are now widely used across multiple cancer types. However, due to their strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinical studies often do not address challenges presented by non-trial populations.

DESIGN

This review summarises available data on the efficacy and safety of ICIs in trial-ineligible patients, including those with autoimmune disease, chronic viral infections, organ transplants, organ dysfunction, poor performance status, and brain metastases, as well as the elderly, children, and those who are pregnant. In addition, we review data concerning other real-world challenges with ICIs, including timing of therapy switch, relationships to radiotherapy or surgery, re-treatment after an immune-related toxicity, vaccinations in patients on ICIs, and current experience around ICI and coronavirus disease-19. Where possible, we provide recommendations to aid the often-difficult decision-making process in those settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Data suggest that ICIs are often active and have an acceptable safety profile in the populations described above, with the exception of PD-1 inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients. Decisions about whether to treat with ICIs should be personalised and require multidisciplinary input and careful counselling of patients with respect to potential risks and benefits. Clinical judgements need to be carefully weighed, considering factors such as underlying cancer type, feasibility of alternative treatment options, or activity in trial-eligible patients.

Second-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and decision making

Currently, conventional treatments for metastatic RCC (mRCC) include immune-based combination regimens and/or targeted therapies, the latter mainly acting on angiogenesis, a key element of the process of tumor growth and spread. Although these agents proved able to improve patients’ outcomes, drug resistance and disease progression are still experienced by a substantial number of VEGFR-TKIs-treated mRCC patients. Following the inhibition of the VEGF/VEGFRs axis, two strategies have emerged: either specifically targeting resistance pathways, at the same time continuing to inhibit angiogenesis, or using a completely different approach aimed at re-activating the immune system through the use of inhibitors of specific negative immune checkpoints. These two approaches, practically represented by the use of either cabozantinib or nivolumab, seem to remain a rational therapeutic approach also when first-line immune-based combinations are used. The objective of this study is to design a preferential therapeutic pathway for the second-line treatment of mRCC. The procedure applied in this project was a group discussion, based on the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) method in a meeting session, aimed at defining the therapeutic choice for the second-line treatment of mRCC. The NGT process defined the most relevant parameters that, according to the interviewed panelists, clinicians should consider for the selection of the second-line therapy in the context of advanced renal cell carcinoma of mRCC. The algorithm developed for the treatment selection as a result of this process should thus be considered by clinicians as reference for therapy selection.

Efficacy and safety of subsequent molecular targeted therapy after immuno-checkpoint therapy, retrospective study of Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AFTER I-O study)

Objectives

Guidelines for treatment of mRCC recommend nivolumab monotherapy (NIVO) for treated patients, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy (NIVO+IPI) for untreated IMDC intermediate and poor-risk mRCC patients. Although molecular-targeted therapies (TTs) such as VEGFR-TKIs and mTORi are recommended as subsequent therapy after NIVO or NIVO+IPI, their efficacy and safety remain unclear.

Methods

Outcome of Japanese patients with mRCC who received TT after NIVO (CheckMate 025) or NIVO+IPI (CheckMate 214) were retrospectively analyzed. Primary endpoints were investigator-assessed ORR of the first TT after either NIVO or NIVO+IPI. Secondary endpoints included TFS, PFS, OS and safety of TTs.

Results

Twenty six patients in CheckMate 025 and 19 patients in CheckMate 214 from 20 centers in Japan were analyzed. As the first subsequent TT after NIVO or NIVO+IPI, axitinib was the most frequently treated regimen for both CheckMate 025 (54%) and CheckMate 214 (47%) patients. The ORRs of TT after NIVO and NIVO+IPI were 27 and 32% (all risks), and median PFSs were 8.9 and 16.3 months, respectively. During the treatment of first TT after either NIVO or NIVO+IPI, 98% of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events, including grade 3–4 events in 51% of patients, and no treatment-related deaths occurred.

Conclusions

TTs have favorable antitumor activity in patients with mRCC after ICI, possibly via changing the mechanism of action. Safety signals of TTs after ICI were similar to previous reports. These results indicate that sequential TTs after ICI may contribute for long survival benefit.

What is next in second- and later-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma? review of the recent literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has changed dramatically from the dominance of single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy to immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations in recent years. However, the optimal subsequent therapy remains ill-defined owing to the novelty of this approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

Treatment with TKIs after failure of single or dual ICI therapies may result in robust clinical efficacy. Nonetheless, there is a trend toward lower efficacy of TKIs after previous ICI-TKI combination therapy. Currently, tivozanib is the only drug whose third- and later-line use after failure of TKI and ICI is supported by evidence, with significantly longer progression-free survival and higher objective response rates than sorafenib. Data from retrospective studies highlight the safety and clinical activity of ICI rechallenge.

SUMMARY

Overall, the level of evidence remains low. Treatment after failure of dual ICI therapy is not well defined and may consist of any available TKI. Although first-line use of TKI is less common, strong evidence suggests cabozantinib or nivolumab as standard options in that setting. The recommendations after first-line TKI-ICI therapy failure mirror this recommendation, although the data are less robust.

Consensus statements on the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the Hong Kong Urological Association and the Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology 2019

BACKGROUND

To establish a set of consensus statements for the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, a total of 12 urologists and clinical oncologists from two professional associations in Hong Kong formed an expert consensus panel.

METHODS

Through a series of meetings and using the modified Delphi method, the panelists presented recent evidence, discussed clinical experiences, and drafted consensus statements on several areas of focus regarding the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Each statement was eventually voted upon by every panelist based on the practicability of recommendation.

RESULTS

A total of 46 consensus statements were ultimately accepted and established by panel voting.

CONCLUSIONS

Derived from recent evidence and expert insights, these consensus statements were aimed at providing practical guidance to optimize metastatic renal cell carcinoma management and promote a higher standard of clinical care.

The Immunotherapy Landscape in Renal Cell Carcinoma

The past 30 years have borne witness to a gradual evolution in the treatment landscape of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Early immunotherapy approaches such as interferon-α and high-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2) therapy in this immunogenic tumor provided durable responses in only a minority of patients and came with toxic side effects. A growing understanding of the tumor biology elucidated pathways of tumorigenesis, which in turn revealed novel targets amenable to targeted therapies. Inhibition of angiogenesis and cell signaling emerged as cornerstones of treatment with the approval of bevacizumab and several pan-kinase and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Though effective, their use has been limited by low rates of durable response, resistance, and side effects. The immunotherapy revolution of the past decade has led to immunotherapy-based combination regimens such as ipilimumab plus nivolumab, pembrolizumab plus axitinib, and avelumab plus axitinib, displacing single agent anti-angiogenic therapy in the first-line setting by demonstrating durable responses and improved survival over sunitinib. These immunotherapy-based combinations define first-line standard of care for aRCC today. The pipeline of second-line agents for consideration in patients who have disease progression despite immunotherapy regimens is robust but still in early stages of development.

Clinical Outcomes of Metastatic Renal Carcinoma Following Disease Progression to Programmed Death (PD)-1 or PD-L1 Inhibitors (IO): A Meet-URO Group Real World Study (Meet-Uro 7)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to collect data about of the outcome of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients who progressed after immune checkpoint inhibitors in order to enhance data about efficacy and safety of treatment beyond immune-oncology (IO).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 162 eligible patients, progressing to IO, were enrolled from 16 Italian referral centers adhering to the Meet-Uro association. Baseline characteristics, outcome data and toxicities were retrospectively collected. Descriptive analysis was made using median values and ranges. Kaplan-Meier method and Mantel-Haenszel log-rank test were performed to compare differences between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients (68.5%) were treated after IO progression. In all, 51 patients (31.5%) did not receive further treatment for clinical deterioration. Median IO progression free survival (PFS) was 4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.1-4.8). IO-PFS tends to be longer in patients reporting adverse events (AE) of any grade (5.03 [95% CI: 3.8-6.1] vs. 2.99 [95% CI: 2.4-3.5] months P=0.004). Subsequent therapies included cabozantinib (n=79, 48%), everolimus (n=11, 6.7%), and others (n=21, 12.9%).Median PFS post-IO was 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.1-7.8). Cabozantinib showed longer PFS compared with everolimus (7.6 mo [95% CI: 5.2-10.1] vs. 3.2 mo [95% CI: 1.8-4.5]) (hazard ratio: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.1026-0.7968) and other drugs (4.3 mo [95% CI: 1.3-7.4]) (hazard ratio: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.35-1.23). All grade AE were reported in 83 patients (74%) and G3 to G4 AE in 39 patients (35%). Target therapies post-IO showed median overall survival of 14.7 months (95% CI: 0.3-21.4).

CONCLUSIONS

In our real world experience after progression to IO, vascular endotelial groth factor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, given to patients, proved to be active and safe choices. Cabozantinib was associated with a better outcome in terms of median PFS.

RNA-based therapies: A cog in the wheel of lung cancer defense

Lung cancer (LC) is a heterogeneous disease consisting mainly of two subtypes, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and remains the leading cause of death worldwide. Despite recent advances in therapies, the overall 5-year survival rate of LC remains less than 20%. The efficacy of current therapeutic approaches is compromised by inherent or acquired drug-resistance and severe off-target effects. Therefore, the identification and development of innovative and effective therapeutic approaches are critically desired for LC. The development of RNA-mediated gene inhibition technologies was a turning point in the field of RNA biology. The critical regulatory role of different RNAs in multiple cancer pathways makes them a rich source of targets and innovative tools for developing anticancer therapies. The identification of antisense sequences, short interfering RNAs (siRNAs), microRNAs (miRNAs or miRs), anti-miRs, and mRNA-based platforms holds great promise in preclinical and early clinical evaluation against LC. In the last decade, RNA-based therapies have substantially expanded and tested in clinical trials for multiple malignancies, including LC. This article describes the current understanding of various aspects of RNA-based therapeutics, including modern platforms, modifications, and combinations with chemo-/immunotherapies that have translational potential for LC therapies.

Clinical Effectiveness of Second-line Sunitinib Following Immuno-oncology Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-world Study

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on the clinical effectiveness of second-line (2L) vascular endothelial growth factor (receptor) targeted inhibitor (VEGF(R)i) sunitinib after first-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in real-world settings.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study among adult patients with mRCC treated with 2L sunitinib following 1L IO was conducted from select International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) centers. All analyses were performed overall and by 1L ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) or 1L IO+VEGF(R)i. Median overall survival (mOS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) in 2L were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The 2L objective response rate (ORR) (complete/partial response) was reported.

RESULTS

Among 102 patients on 2L sunitinib, mean age was 61.3 years. IMDC risk scores at 2L initiation was available for 83 patients: 8 (9.6%) were favorable, 45 (54.2%) were intermediate, and 30 (36.1%) were poor risk. The 1L consisted of IPI+NIVO in 62 (60.8%), IO+VEGF(R)i therapy in 27 (26.5%), and IO monotherapy in 13 (12.7%) patients. Among all patients, mOS was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8-21.7), with a 1-year OS rate of 57.5% (95% CI, 45.2-68.0). mTTD was 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.2-7.2) and ORR was 22.5%.

CONCLUSION

Despite availability of effective 1L therapies in recent years, 2L sunitinib continues to have clinical activity after failure of 1L IO. Further studies on optimal treatment sequencing after 1L IO progression are needed.

Real-world outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma according to risk factors: the STAR-TOR registry

Aim: Examine outcomes in sunitinib-treated patients by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) or Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk factors. Patients & methods: Patients enrolled in STAR-TOR registry (n = 327). End points included overall survival, progression-free survival and objective response rate. Results: Overall survival was similar for IMDC 0 versus 1 (p = 0.238) or 2 versus ≥3 (p = 0.156), but different for MSKCC (0 vs 1, p = 0.037; 2 vs ≥3, p = 0.001). Progression-free survival was similar for IMDC 2 versus 3 (p = 0.306), but different for MSKCC (p = 0.009). Objective response rate was different for IMDC 1 (41.9%) and 2 (29.5%) and similar for MSKCC 1 (34.4%) and 2 (31.0%). Conclusion: Outcome data varied according to IMDC or MSKCC. MSKCC model accurately stratify patients into risk groups. Clinical trial registration: NCT00700258 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

We have experienced several paradigm shifts and substantial changes in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) over the last two decades. Combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as a dual combination (ICI-ICI) or with VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKI) has shown remarkable efficacy in mRCC patients and has become the standard of care in first-line therapy.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we will discuss the background as well as the benefits of combining ICI with TKI compared to ICI-ICI combination therapy for mRCC treatment and will also briefly highlight biomarkers for patient selection on therapies to improve patient outcomes and limit toxicities.

EXPERT OPINION

Due to the mediated additional anti-tumor effects, there is a strong rationale to combine ICIs and TKIs for mRCC therapy. When comparing first-line therapy options, the exceptionally higher ORR and PFS for the ICI-TKI combinations should be highlighted, whereas, nevertheless, the complete response rate is slightly higher for the ICI-ICI combination. In terms of an individualized therapeutic approach, biomarkers predicting the success or failure of an anti-VEGF-based regimen or ICI therapy as a corresponding mono - or combination therapy are lacking so far, however, gene expression signatures can be a landmark in this field.

Efficacy of Axitinib After Nivolumab Failure in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIM

Whether molecular-targeted therapy, particularly axitinib, is effective after failure of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the therapeutic effect of axitinib as a third-line therapy following second-line nivolumab monotherapy for mRCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from patients treated with axitinib as a third-line therapy after failure of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and second-line nivolumab monotherapy were reviewed. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate during axitinib therapy were retrospectively evaluated. Tumor responses were assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were treated with third-line axitinib after failure of prior TKI and nivolumab. During a median follow-up of 8.15 months, eight (47.1%) and three (17.6%) patients showed disease progression and died, respectively. The median PFS was 12.8 months [95% confidence interval=(CI)4.08-21.7], the 1-year PFS rate was 51.3%, and the 1-year OS rate was 71.6%. The median magnitude of maximum changes of targeted lesions from baseline was -11.9% (95%CI=-36.1-0.44%). The objective response rate and disease control rates were 29.4% (n=5) and 94.1% (n=16), respectively. Univariate analysis for PFS showed a shorter PFS in patients with non-clear cell histopathological types or those with liver metastases (p-Value<0.0001 for both).

CONCLUSION

Axitinib as a third-line therapy showed reasonable therapeutic efficacy after the failure of first-line TKI and second-line nivolumab monotherapy for mRCC. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Brain stem gliomas and current landscape

PURPOSE

CNS malignancies are currently the most common cause of disease related deaths in children. Although brainstem gliomas are invariably fatal cancers in children, clinical studies against this disease are limited. This review is to lead to a succinct collection of knowledge of known biological mechanisms of this disease and discuss available therapeutics.

METHODS

A hallmark of brainstem gliomas are mutations in the histone H3.3 with the majority of cases expressing the mutation K27M on histone 3.3. Recent studies using whole genome sequencing have revealed other mutations associated with disease. Current standard clinical practice may merely involve radiation and/or chemotherapy with little hope for long term survival. Here we discuss the potential of new therapies.

CONCLUSION

Despite the lack of treatment options using frequently practiced clinical techniques, immunotherapeutic strategies have recently been developed to target brainstem gliomas. To target brainstem gliomas, investigators are evaluating the use of broad non-targeted therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Alternatively, others have begun to explore adoptive T cell strategies against these fatal malignancies.