Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Rapidly Progressive to Sunitinib: What to Do Next?

Impact of Metastatic Site in Favorable-Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Sunitinib or Pazopanib

BACKGROUND

Although in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients with intermediate and poor risk the benefit of combination strategies versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) has been ascertained, in those with favorable risk data are ambiguous. Herein, we investigated the impact of number and type of metastatic site in patients with favorable risk to contribute to the best therapeutic choice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Multicenter data regarding patients with favorable risk mRCC carcinoma receiving first-line TKIs, sunitinib or pazopanib, were retrospectively collected. We divided our population into 2 groups based on the number of metastatic sites and analyzed its impact on tumor response and efficacy outcome. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate efficacy outcomes and the log-rank test to examine differences between subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients with a median age of 69 years were included in the final analysis. Patients with 1 metastatic site, compared with patients with > 1 site, had a significantly longer overall survival (OS) (not reached vs. 66 months) and a trend, although not statistically significant, of better progression-free survival (PFS) (31 vs. 17 months). In patients with 1 metastatic site, liver involvement was correlated with worse PFS and OS at the univariate analysis (P = .01) and was confirmed as independent poor prognostic factor for PFS at multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we reported a longer OS in favorable risk mRCC patients receiving TKI with only 1 metastatic site. Nevertheless, in patients with a single metastatic site, hepatic involvement correlated with worse PFS compared to other metastatic sites.

Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Predictive Biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Over the past few years, significant advancements have been achieved in the front-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinomas (mRCCs). However, most patients will eventually encounter disease progression during this front-line treatment and require further therapeutic options. While treatment choices for mRCCs patients are determined by established risk classification models, knowledge of prognostic factors in subsequent line therapy is essential in patient care.

METHODS

In this retrospective, single-center study, patients diagnosed with mRCCs who experienced progression after first-line therapy were enrolled. Fifteen factors were analyzed for their prognostic impact on survival using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Poor International Metastatic RCCs Database Consortium (IMDC) and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk scores, NLR value > 3, clinical benefit < 3 months from a therapeutic line, and the presence of sarcomatoid differentiation were found to be poor independent prognostic factors for shortened overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided new insights into the identification of potential prognostic parameters for late-line treatment in mRCCs. The results indicated that good IMDC and MSKCC prognostic scores are effective in second-line therapy. Moreover, patients with NLR < 3, no sarcomatoid differentiation, and clinical benefit > 3 months experienced significantly longer overall survival.

Administration of Nivolumab in Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer Following Treatment With mTOR Inhibitors

BACKGROUND/AIM

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors is currently considered a cornerstone of metastatic renal clear cell cancer (mRCC) therapy. Despite the general improvement in the survival of patients with mRCC, there are some clinical situations that have not been specifically evaluated in clinical trials, such as the use of everolimus before nivolumab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis evaluating the efficacy of nivolumab in the real-world setting, including a subset of patients with previous mTOR inhibitor therapy.

RESULTS

From a total of 56 patients, 25 were pre-treated with everolimus before receiving nivolumab. The overall progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate were 10.3, 21.3 months, and 34%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in patients who were or were not pre-treated with everolimus.

CONCLUSION

mRCC patients should be treated with checkpoint inhibitors and prior use of mTOR inhibitors should not be a definitive exclusion criterium.

Pulmonary metastasectomy in renal cell carcinoma: a mainstay of multidisciplinary treatment

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains a public health issue and seems to be increasing. A significant proportion of RCC patients will develop pulmonary metastasis at some point in their evolution. In this review, we aimed to update the surgical management of pulmonary metastases as well as systemic therapy, including targeted therapies, according to recent data in the literature. We retrospectively reviewed studies evaluating the benefit of pulmonary metastasectomy in RCC patients and evaluating the place of different chemotherapies, targeted therapies and immunotherapies through November 1, 2019. Several retrospective studies have shown the benefit of pulmonary metastasectomy in metastatic RCC (mRCC), most in a situation with only pulmonary metastases. According to the prognostic criteria of the IMDC risk model, the patient is classified into a prognostic group to identify the best systemic treatment. With the development of targeted therapies, the modalities are multiple and may involve tyrosine kinase inhibitors/checkpoint inhibitors and soon vaccine therapy or CAR-T cells. At the local level, in patients who cannot benefit from surgery, stereotactic radiotherapy or radiofrequency has a place to be considered. Although there is a lack of a randomized study, pulmonary metastasectomy appears to be feasible and effective. The place and modalities of systemic therapies in the era of targeted therapies remain to be more clearly defined.

Sunitinib treatment promotes metastasis of drug-resistant renal cell carcinoma via TFE3 signaling pathway

Receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitors, such as sunitinib and sorafenib, remain the first-line drugs for the treatment of mRCC. Acquired drug resistance and metastasis are the main causes of treatment failure. However, in the case of metastasis Renal Cell Cancer (mRCC), which showed a good response to sunitinib, we found that long-term treatment with sunitinib could promote lysosome biosynthesis and exocytosis, thereby triggering the metastasis of RCC. By constructing sunitinib-resistant cell lines in vivo, we confirmed that TFE3 plays a key role in the acquired resistance to sunitinib in RCC. Under the stimulation of sunitinib, TFE3 continued to enter the nucleus, promoting the expression of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) protein E-Syt1. E-Syt1 and the lysosomal membrane protein Syt7 form a heterodimer, which induces ER fragmentation, Ca2+ release, and lysosomal exocytosis. Lysosomal exocytosis has two functions: pumping sunitinib out from the cytoplasm, which promotes resistance to sunitinib in RCC, releasing cathepsin B (CTSB) into the extracellular matrix (ECM), which can degrade the ECM to enhance the invasion and metastasis ability of RCC. Our study found that although sunitinib is an effective drug for the treatment of mRCC, once RCC has acquired resistance to sunitinib, sunitinib treatment will promote metastasis.

Clinical and Pathological Characteristics of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Needing a Second-Line Therapy: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

The management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) represents a clinical challenge. Progression or toxicity may occur during first-line treatments and many patients require a second-line option. Given the expanding options for second-line therapies clinicians are faced with the challenge to individualize treatment. We performed a systematic review in order to summarize available evidences about the clinicopathological profile of mRCC patients who receive a second-line therapy. We identified twenty-nine studies enrolling 7650 patients. Discontinuation of first-line therapy was due to progression in the majority of patients with 77.8% patients harboring ≥2 metastatic sites. Most patients had a good performance status, their age ranged from 55 to 70 years and their prognostic profile revealed a good or intermediate disease in most cases. Tailoring of second-line treatment strategies based on these features is strongly advocated.

Abstract

A high percentage of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) require a second-line option. We aimed to summarize available evidences about the clinicopathological profile of mRCC patients who receive a second-line therapy. A systematic review was performed in August 2020. We included papers that met the following criteria: original research; English language; human studies; enrolling mRCC patients entering a second-line therapy. Twenty-nine studies enrolling 7650 patients (73.5% male, mean age: 55 to 70 years) were included. Clear cell histology was reported in 74.4% to 100% of cases. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immunotherapy, bevacizumab, mTOR inhibitors, and chemotherapy were adopted as first line option in 68.5%, 29.2%, 2.9%, 0.6%, and 0.2% of patients, respectively. Discontinuation of first-line therapy was due to progression and toxicity in 18.4% to 100% and in 17% to 48.8% of patients, respectively. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score was 0 or 1 in most cases. Most prevalent prognostic categories according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium and Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Centre score were intermediate and good. About 77.8% of patients harboured ≥2 metastatic sites. In conclusion, patients who enter a second-line therapy are heterogeneous in terms of a clinical-pathological profile. Tailoring of second-line treatment strategies is strongly advocated.

Comparison of survival outcomes in patients with metastatic papillary vs. clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a propensity-score analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare survival outcomes of metastatic patients harbouring either papillary (pRCC) or clear-cell (ccRCC) renal cell carcinoma in overall population and according to treatment modality.

METHODS

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2006-2015), we identified 6800 patients (585 papillary and 6215 clear-cell) with metastatic RCC. Propensity-score (PS) matching, Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox-regression models (CRMs) were used.

RESULTS

Overall, 585 (8.6%) patients harboured pRCC. Rates of nodal metastases were higher in patients with pRCC (49.7 vs. 23.3%; p < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 13 vs. 18 months for pRCC vs. ccRCC patients. After multivariable adjustments, no difference in OS was recorded. Furthermore, after propensity-score matching, virtually the same results were recorded. Median OS of pRCC vs. ccRCC was 8 vs. 4 months for no treatment (NT), 11 vs. 12 months for targeted therapy alone (TT), 17 vs. 35 months for cytoreductive nephrectomy alone (CN) and 18 vs. 25 months for combination of CN with TT.

CONCLUSIONS

Metastatic pRCC patients exhibit poor survival, regardless of treatment received. Moreover, pRCC patients are more likely to present nodal metastases, compared to ccRCC patients, as demonstrated by twofold higher rates of lymph node invasion at diagnosis. These observations indicate that papillary variant represents more prognostically unfavorable tumor histology, in the context of metastatic RCC.