Efficacy of Second-line Targeted Therapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma According to Change from Baseline in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Prognostic Category

Efficacy of VEGFR-TKIs plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with favorable IMDC prognosis

BACKGROUND

Combinations of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) with VEGFR-TKIs as first-line therapy significantly improve outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. The benefit of these combinations is well evident in the IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk population, but remains unclear in the subgroup of patients with favorable prognosis. Our meta-analysis aims at evaluating whether the addition of ICIs to VEGFR-TKIs is able to improve the outcome compared to VEGFR-TKIs alone in mRCC patients with favorable prognosis.

METHODS

This meta-analysis searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library and ASCO Meeting abstracts for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing the combination of VEGFR-TKI + ICI in mRCC. Data extraction was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. Summary hazard ratio (HR) was calculated using random- or fixed-effects models, depending on studies heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were selected. VEGFR-TKI + ICI combinations improved PFS compared to sunitinib (fixed-effect, HR = 0.63; p < 0.00001). However, VEGFR-TKI + ICI combinations did not significantly prolong OS (fixed-effect; HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.74-1.33; p = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

VEGFR-TKI + ICI combinations improved PFS but not OS as first-line therapy for mRCC patients with favorable IMDC prognosis. Longer follow-up and further studies will increase the power of our analysis, suggesting the best first-line therapy for mRCC patients with favorable prognosis.

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.

Phase 2 Multicenter Single-Arm Study of Second-Line Axitinib in Favorable Risk Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: FavorAx

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapy with axitinib resulted in a greater objective response rate and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib in patients with previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the phase 3 AXIS study, where 75% of patients had intermediate and poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk.

OBJECTIVE

In this phase 2 study (FavorAx), we assessed the activity of axitinib in mRCC patients with a favorable risk and history of prior vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-directed therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were required to have clear-cell mRCC, favorable risk according to IMDC criteria, and to have received first-line treatment with sunitinib or pazopanib. Prior treatment with other agents was not permitted. The primary endpoint of the study was 5 months PFS. Additional endpoints included response rate, safety, PFS, and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients were enrolled, 62% of whom were male. The mean age was 60 years. Eleven (52%) patients had two or more metastatic sites. 67% and 33% of patients received first-line sunitinib or pazopanib, respectively, with a median PFS of 17 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 14-20]. After a median follow-up of 25 months, the median PFS was 19 months (95% CI, 15-23). The current study did achieve its primary endpoint based on the 5-month PFS of 100%. The median OS was not yet reached. The 18 months OS rate was 85.7%. The objective response rate was 33% and one patient achieved a complete response. Seven patients had dose escalation of axitinib and four patients had dose reduction. Grade 3 adverse events were observed in 19% of cases. There was no discontinuation of therapy due to toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

The encouraging PFS and favorable safety profile observed in the FavorAx study support the administration of axitinib in mRCC patients with favorable IMDC risk and a history of prior sunitinib or pazopanib.

Improved Survival Outcomes for Kidney Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases

BACKGROUND

Brain metastases (BM) occur frequently in patients with metastatic kidney cancer and are a significant source of morbidity and mortality. Although historically associated with a poor prognosis, survival outcomes for patients in the modern era are incompletely characterized. In particular, outcomes after adjusting for systemic therapy administration and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk factors are not well-known.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective database of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center between 2006 and 2015 was created. Data relevant to their diagnosis, treatment course, and outcomes were systematically collected. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients with BM were compared with patients without BM after adjusting for the timing of BM diagnosis, either prior to or during first-line systemic therapy. The impact of stratification according to IMDC risk group was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 56 (28.4%) of 268 patients with metastatic RCC were diagnosed with BM prior to or during first-line systemic therapy. Median overall survival (OS) for systemic therapy-naive patients with BM compared with matched patients without BM was 19.5 versus 28.7 months (P = .0117). When analyzed according to IMDC risk group, the median OS for patients with BM was similar for favorable- and intermediate-risk patients (not reached vs. not reached; and 29.0 vs. 36.7 months; P = .5254), and inferior for poor-risk patients (3.5 vs. 9.4 months; P = .0462). For patients developing BM while on first-line systemic therapy, survival from the time of progression did not significantly differ by presence or absence of BM (11.8 vs. 17.8 months; P = .6658).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival rates for patients with BM are significantly better than historical reports. After adjusting for systemic therapy, the survival rates of patients with BM in favorable- and intermediate-risk groups were remarkably better than expected and not statistically different from patients without BM, though this represents a single institution experience, and numbers are modest.

Hyponatremia associates with poor outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with everolimus: prognostic impact

BACKGROUND

The prognostication of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is based on Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk classifications. Research has shown that hyponatremia is associated with worse prognosis in cancer. We analyzed the association of hyponatremia and outcome in everolimus-treated mRCC patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Baseline and on-treatment (≤12 weeks) sodium in 233 mRCC patients was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression and logistic regression. Baseline sodium was correlated with baseline thrombocyte and neutrophil values.

RESULTS

65 (28%) and 41 (18%) patients had sodium < lower limit of normal (LLN) at baseline and on-treatment, respectively. Baseline sodium < LLN was associated with shorter overall survival (OS) (6.1 vs. 10.3 months; p < .001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (2.8 vs. 3.5 months; p = .04). On-treatment sodium < LLN was associated with shorter OS (5.4 vs. 9.9 months; p < .001) and PFS (2.8 vs. 4.0 months; p < .001). In multivariate analyses adjusted for IMDC factors, baseline and on-treatment sodium < LLN were significantly associated with shorter OS (adjusted HR 1.46 (95% CI 1.04-2.05); p = .02; adjusted HR 1.80 (95% CI 1.23-2.61); p = .002; respectively). On-treatment sodium < LLN was significantly associated with progressive disease (OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.10-0.56); p = .001). A landmark analysis demonstrated that on-treatment hyponatremia was significantly associated with shorter OS and PFS (p = .01 and p = .03, respectively). On-treatment normalization of hyponatremia was associated with improved OS (unadjusted HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.35-0.98); p = .04), as compared to patients with sustained hyponatremia throughout follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyponatremia associates with poor outcome in mRCC patients treated with everolimus. On-treatment normalization of hyponatremia to normal sodium values associates with favorable outcome.

Current management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: evolving new therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Targeted therapies have recently replaced cytokine treatments as the gold standard for management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Currently approved treatments include the tyrosine kinase inhibitors sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib, sorafenib, cabozantinib and lenvatinib; the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor bevacizumab; the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors everolimus and temsirolimus; and the immunologic nivolumab. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated analysis of the clinical data supporting the use of these agents in the first-line and second-line setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the first-line setting, pazopanib may be better tolerated than sunitinib, an individualized dosing sunitinib regimen based on toxicity might improve survival and cabozantinib appears to be an emerging option. In the second-line setting, three new therapies (cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus and nivolumab) have shown superiority against everolimus, the previous standard therapy. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium prognostic model may be useful in guiding the selection of subsequent therapy and patients eligible for metastasectomy.

SUMMARY

Targeted therapies are the standard treatment for mRCC. Despite advancements in survival, progression-free survival and tolerability, these targeted therapies remain largely noncurative. Further characterization of the RCC oncogenic pathway, and the ongoing clinical trials should help optimize the management of mRCC.

Is It Possible to Improve Prognostic Classification in Patients Affected by Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma With an Intermediate or Poor Prognosis?

BACKGROUND

The International mRCC (metastatic renal cell carcinoma) Database Consortium (IMDC) is the standard classification for mRCC. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of a large cohort of patients with an intermediate or a poor prognosis treated with sunitinib using a different cutoff point for IMDC to improve the classification.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with an intermediate or a poor prognosis according to the IMDC criteria and treated with sunitinib were included in the present study. A new cutoff point was used to categorize the patients. The new score was validated in an independent cohort of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 457 patients were included in the present study. Significant differences in overall survival (OS) were highlighted regarding the number of prognostic factors. Three categories were identified according to the presence of 1 (ie, favorable-intermediate group), 2 (ie, real-intermediate group), and > 2 (ie, poor group) factors. The corresponding median OS periods were 32.9, 20.0, and 8.9 months, with significant differences among the groups. The validation cohort included 389 patients. The median OS period for the favorable-intermediate group, real-intermediate group, and poor group was 34.3, 19.4, and 9.0 months, respectively, with confirmed significant differences among the groups.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis revealed significant differences among patients with an intermediate prognosis using the IMDC prognostic factors. Further investigations to optimize the use of available and upcoming therapies are required.

MicroRNA-183 promotes the proliferation and metastasis of renal cell carcinoma through targeting Dickkopf-related protein 3

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is insensitive to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and its prognosis remains poor. Targeted therapy is a novel technique for the treatment of RCC. The present study aimed to determine the precise effects of microRNA-183 (miR-183) on RCC. Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis was conducted in order to analyze the expression level of miR-183 in RCC cell lines. Cell transfection, viability assays and invasion assays were also performed, followed by western blot analysis and a luciferase reporter assay, in order to examine the effects of miR-183. The expression of miR-183 was upregulated in all four RCC cell lines compared with the immortalized normal proximal tubule epithelial HK-2 cell line. The cell viability and invasion assays demonstrated that decreased expression of miR-183 suppressed RCC cell proliferation and invasion in vitro. Furthermore, the present study identified that Dickkopf-related protein-3 (DKK-3) was a direct target of miR-183 in RCC. The results demonstrated that miR-183 functioned as an oncogene by downregulating DKK-3 expression and that it provided a potential diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic target for RCC.

Utilization and efficacy of second-line targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: data from a national registry

Background

It is well known that patient characteristics and survival outcomes in randomized trials may not necessarily be similar to those in real-life clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to analyse second line treatment strategies in the real-world practice and to estimate the outcomes of patients treated with second-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Methods

This is a retrospective, registry-based study using data from the national registry of targeted therapies for mRCC. The RENIS registry contains data on 3049 patients who started the therapy with at least one targeted agent before 31 December, 2014. Of these patients, 1029 had a record of at least two different targeted therapies and sufficient data for analysis. Survival analysis was carried out using the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical significance of differences in survival between subgroups was assessed using the log-rank test.

Results

The median overall survival from the start of second-line treatment was 17.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.5–19.5 months), 17.1 months (95% CI 14.5–19.8), and 15.4 months (95% CI 11.0–19.7) for second-line everolimus, sorafenib, and sunitinib, respectively. Patients receiving second-line everolimus were older at the start of second-line treatment, more likely to have metachronous disease, and less likely to be previously treated with cytokines or to continue to third-line treatment than patients treated with second-line sunitinib or sorafenib. Progression-free survival (PFS) correlated with PFS on first-line treatment only for everolimus.

Conclusions

In this retrospective study, no significant differences in survival were observed between the cohorts treated with different second-line agents including everolimus, sorafenib, and sunitinib.