Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib monotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma after progression with previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment (CONTACT-03): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Renal Cell Carcinoma of Variant Histology: New Biologic Understanding Leads to Therapeutic Advances

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the 10 most commonly diagnosed solid tumors. Most RCCs are histologically defined as clear cell, comprising approximately 75% of diagnoses. However, the remaining RCC cases are composed of a heterogeneous combination of diverse histopathologic subtypes, each with unique pathogeneses and clinical features. Although the therapeutic approach to both localized and metastatic RCCs has dramatically changed, first with the advent of antiangiogenic targeted therapies and more recently with the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations, these advances have primarily benefited the clear cell RCC patient population. As such, there remains critical gaps in the optimization of treatment regimens for patients with non-clear cell, or variant, RCC histologies. Herein, we detail recent advances in understanding the biology of RCC with variant histology and how such findings have guided novel clinical studies investigating precision oncology approaches for these rare subtypes. Among the most common variant histology RCCs are papillary RCC, comprising approximately 15%-20% of all diagnoses. Although a histopathologically diverse subset of tumors, papillary RCC is canonically associated with amplification of the MET protooncogene; recently completed and ongoing trials have investigated MET-directed therapies for this patient population. Finally, we discuss the unique biology of RCC with sarcomatoid dedifferentiation and the recent clinical findings detailing its paradoxical sensitivity to ICIs.

Antiangiogenic-immune-checkpoint inhibitor combinations: lessons from phase III clinical trials

Antiangiogenic agents, generally antibodies or tyrosine-kinase inhibitors that target the VEGF-VEGFR pathway, are currently among the few combination partners clinically proven to improve the efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This benefit has been demonstrated in pivotal phase III trials across different cancer types, some with practice-changing results; however, numerous phase III trials have also had negative results. The rationale for using antiangiogenic drugs as partners for ICIs relies primarily on blocking the multiple immunosuppressive effects of VEGF and inducing several different vascular-modulating effects that can stimulate immunity, such as vascular normalization leading to increased intratumoural blood perfusion and flow, and inhibition of pro-apoptotic effects of endothelial cells on T cells, among others. Conversely, VEGF blockade can also cause changes that suppress antitumour immunity, such as increased tumour hypoxia, and reduced intratumoural ingress of co-administered ICIs. As a result, the net clinical benefits from antiangiogenic-ICI combinations will be determined by the balance between the opposing effects of VEGF signalling and its inhibition on the antitumour immune response. In this Perspective, we summarize the results from the currently completed phase III trials evaluating antiangiogenic agent-ICI combinations. We also discuss strategies to improve the efficacy of these combinations, focusing on aspects that include the deleterious functions of VEGF-VEGFR inhibition on antitumour immunity, vessel co-option as a driver of non-angiogenic tumour growth, clinical trial design, or the rationale for drug selection, dosing and scheduling.

Effect of rechallenge nivolumab in a hemodialysis patient with multiple metastases from a rapidly progressed T1a renal clear cell carcinoma: An autopsy case

Introduction

Distant metastasis of T1a renal cell carcinoma is rare and whether metastasis is more probable in patients undergoing hemodialysis remains unclear. We report the autopsy case of a patient undergoing hemodialysis with multiple metastases that rapidly progressed from T1a renal cell carcinoma treated with multimodal therapy including nivolumab.

Case presentation

A 70-year-old male who underwent hemodialysis was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma (pT1a, G2) after nephrectomy. Six months post-surgery, bone and lung metastases appeared and treated with radiotherapy and pazopanib, respectively. Nivolumab was administered as second- and fourth-line treatments for lung metastases. The patient died approximately 60 months after initial diagnosis; however, nivolumab controlled disease progression for 24 months. An autopsy revealed the lung's occupation with clear cell carcinoma tumor tissue.

Conclusion

Nivolumab has potential to control lung metastasis progression. Additionally, rechallenge is possible in patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing hemodialysis.

First-in-human Phase I Trial of TPST-1120, an Inhibitor of PPARα, as Monotherapy or in Combination with Nivolumab, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

PURPOSE

TPST-1120 is a first-in-class oral inhibitor of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα), a fatty acid ligand-activated transcription factor that regulates genes involved in fatty acid oxidation, angiogenesis, and inflammation, and is a novel target for cancer therapy. TPST-1120 displayed antitumor activity in xenograft models and synergistic tumor reduction in syngeneic tumor models when combined with anti-PD-1 agents.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

This phase I, open-label, dose-escalation study (NCT03829436) evaluated TPST-1120 as monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors and in combination with nivolumab in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), or hepatocellular carcinoma. Objectives included evaluation of safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary antitumor activity (RECIST v1.1).

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients enrolled with 38 treated (20 monotherapy, 18 combination; median 3 prior lines of therapy). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were grade 1-2 nausea, fatigue, and diarrhea. No grade 4-5 TRAEs or dose-limiting toxicities were reported. In the monotherapy group, 53% (10/19) of evaluable patients had a best objective response of stable disease. In the combination group, 3 patients had partial responses, for an objective response rate of 20% (3/15) across all doses and 30% (3/10) at TPST-1120 ≥400 mg twice daily. Responses occurred in 2 patients with RCC, both of whom had previously progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy, and 1 patient with late-line CCA.

CONCLUSIONS

TPST-1120 was well tolerated as monotherapy and in combination with nivolumab and the combination showed preliminary evidence of clinical activity in PD-1 inhibitor refractory and immune compromised cancers.

SIGNIFICANCE

TPST-1120 is a first-in-class oral inhibitor of PPARα, whose roles in metabolic and immune regulation are implicated in tumor proliferation/survival and inhibition of anticancer immunity. This first-in-human study of TPST-1120 alone and in combination with nivolumab supports proof-of-concept of PPARα inhibition as a target of therapeutic intervention in solid tumors.

Cabozantinib in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Context

Cabozantinib combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has brought a new therapeutic effect for the medical treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Objectives

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and single-arm trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib plus ICIs in RCC.

Methods

We extracted data from PubMed, Cochrane, Medline and Embase databases, and rated literature quality through Cochrane risk of bias tool and MINORS. RevMan5.3 software was used to analyze the results of randomized controlled trials and single-arm trials.

Results

A total of 7 studies were included. Treatment with cabozantinib plus ICIs improved PFS [HR 0.75, (95%CI: 0.52, 1.08), p = 0.12] and the OS [HR 0.80, (95%CI: 0.60, 1.07), p = 0.13] in randomized controlled trials. Meanwhile, the result of the ORR in randomized controlled trials was [risk ratio (RR) 1.37, (95%CI: 1.21, 1.54), p < 0.00001] and in single-arm trials was [risk difference (RD) 0.49, (95%CI: 0.26, 0.71), p < 0.0001].

Conclusion

Cabozantinib plus ICIs prolonged the PFS and OS, and improved ORR in patients with RCC. Our recommendation is to use cabozantinib plus ICIs to treat advanced RCC, and to continuous monitor and manage the drug-related adverse events.

Systematic Review Registration

identifier CRD42023455878.

Rationale for immune checkpoint inhibitors plus targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a frequent urological malignancy characterized by a high rate of metastasis and lethality. The treatment strategy for advanced RCC has moved through multiple iterations over the past three decades. Initially, cytokine treatment was the only systemic treatment option for patients with RCC. With the development of medicine, antiangiogenic agents targeting vascular endothelial growth factor and mammalian target of rapamycin and immunotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged and received several achievements in the therapeutics of advanced RCC. However, ICIs have still not brought completely satisfactory results due to drug resistance and undesirable side effects. For the past years, the interests form researchers have been attracted by the combination of ICIs and targeted therapy for advanced RCC and the angiogenesis and immunogenic tumor microenvironmental variations in RCC. Therefore, we emphasize the potential principle and the clinical progress of ICIs combined with targeted treatment of advanced RCC, and summarize the future direction.

Definitions and unmet needs in the management of oligomestatic renal cell carcinoma in the modern era

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a complex entity, potentially leading to a specific clinical management of these patients. Recent and ongoing trials have raised several unresolved questions that could impact clinical routine practice, advocating for the integration of novel treatment options (systemic treatment, cytoreductive surgery, or stereotactic body radiotherapy - SBRT) with varied modalities and objectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Immunotherapy represents a breakthrough in the systemic treatment of mRCC. However, many questions are still unsolved regarding the perfect timing for starting systemic and whether the systemic treatment could improve the activity of metastases-directed strategies. Moreover, the widespread use of adjuvant immunotherapy will challenge the treatment paradigm in the oligorecurrent scenario. Radical surgery of metastases and more recently SBRT - both eventually associated with systemic treatment - actually represent two important approaches to be considered in oligometastatic patients.

SUMMARY

Oligometastatic RCC represents a status including a wide spectrum of clinical conditions that requires a tailored treatment approach. The correct management integrates local approaches (either metastasectomy or SRBT) and systemic (immune)-therapy. Several unmet needs have to be investigated, mainly regarding the lack of prospective randomized trials that directly compare modern therapies and different integration strategies.

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.

Association between sex and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: To explore the association between sex and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Materials & methods: We assessed the difference in survival outcomes from ICIs between sexes using an interaction test. Results: 108 studies representing 70,243 patients were included. In the first-line setting, the pooled interaction HR was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.91-1.04). In the subsequent-line setting, the pooled interaction HR was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77-0.95). When ICIs were given as perioperative therapy or as systemic therapy in patients with positive PD-L1 expression, both men and women obtained equal survival benefits. Conclusion: Both sex, line of therapy, cancer (sub)type and PD-L1 status should be taken into account in the assessment of risk versus benefit when deciding to offer ICIs to patients.

Avelumab Plus Intermittent Axitinib in Previously Untreated Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. The Tide-A Phase 2 Study

BACKGROUND

Combinations of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) plus immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) against PD1/PD-L1 are the standard first-line therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), irrespective of the prognostic class.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility and safety of withdrawing VEGFR-TKI but continuing anti-PD1/PD-L1 in patients who achieve a response to their combination.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a single-arm phase 2 trial in patients with treatment-naïve mRCC with prior nephrectomy, without symptomatic/bulky disease and no liver metastases.

INTERVENTION

Enrolled patients received axitinib + avelumab; after 36 wk of therapy those who achieved a tumour response interrupted axitinib and continued avelumab maintenance until disease progression.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was the rate of patients without progression 8 wk after the axitinib interruption. The secondary endpoints were the median value for progression-free (mPFS) and overall (mOS) survival and the safety in the overall population.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Seventy-nine patients were enrolled and 75 were evaluated for efficacy. A total of 29 (38%) patients had axitinib withdrawn, as per the study design, with 72% of them having no progression after 8 wk and thus achieving the primary endpoint. The mPFS of the overall population was 24 mo, while the mOS was not reached. The objective response rate was 76% (12% complete response and 64% partial response), with 19% of patients having stable disease. In the patients who discontinued axitinib, the incidence of adverse events of any grade was 59% for grade 3 and 3% for grade 4. This study was limited by the lack of a comparative arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The TIDE-A study demonstrates that the withdrawal of VEGFR-TKI with ICI maintenance is feasible for selected mRCC patients with evidence of a response to the VEGFR-TKI + ICI combination employed in first-line therapy. Axitinib interruption with avelumab maintenance leads to decreased side effects and should be investigated further as a new strategy to delay tumour progression.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated whether certain patients with advanced kidney cancer treated with the fist-line combination of axitinib plus avelumab can interrupt the axitinib in case of a tumour response after 36 wk of therapy. We found that axitinib interruption improved the safety of the combination, while the maintenance with avelumab might delay tumour progression.

Immunosuppressants against acute kidney injury: what to prefer or to avoid?

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a critical global health issue associated with high mortality rates, particularly in patients undergoing renal transplants and major surgeries. These individuals often receive immunosuppressants to dampen immune responses, but the impact of these drugs on AKI remains unclear.Objective: This review aims to provide a detailed understanding of the effects of different classes of immunosuppressants against AKI, elucidating their role in either exacerbating or mitigating the occurrence or progression of AKI.Methods: Several preclinical and clinical reports were analyzed to evaluate the impact of various immunosuppressants on AKI. Relevant preclinical and clinical studies were reviewed through different databases such as Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect, and official websites like https://clinicaltrials.gov to understand the mechanisms underlying the effects of immunosuppressants on kidney function.Results and discussion: Specific immunosuppressants have been linked to the progression of AKI, while others demonstrate renoprotective effects. However, there is no consensus on the preferred or avoided immunosuppressants for AKI patients. This review outlines the classes of immunosuppressants commonly used and their impact on AKI, providing guidance for physicians in selecting appropriate drugs to prevent or ameliorate AKI.Conclusion: Understanding the effects of immunosuppressants on AKI is crucial for optimizing patient care. This review highlights the need for further research to determine the most suitable immunosuppressants for AKI patients, considering both their efficacy and potential side effects.

Novel small molecule inhibitors targeting renal cell carcinoma: Status, challenges, future directions

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common renal malignancy with a rapidly increasing morbidity and mortality rate gradually. RCC has a high mortality rate and an extremely poor prognosis. Despite numerous treatment strategies, RCC is resistant to conventional radiotherapy and chemotherapy. In addition, the limited clinical efficacy and inevitable resistance of multiple agents suggest an unmet clinical need. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop novel anti-RCC candidates. Nowadays many promising results have been achieved with the development of novel small molecule inhibitors against RCC. This paper reviews the recent research progress of novel small molecule inhibitors targeting RCC. It is focusing on the structural optimization process and conformational relationships of small molecule inhibitors, as well as the potential mechanisms and anticancer activities for the treatment of RCC. To provide a theoretical basis for promoting the clinical translation of novel small molecule inhibitors, we discussed their application prospects and future development directions. It could be capable of improving the clinical efficacy of RCC and improving the therapy resistance for RCC.

Identification of genomic drivers for the therapeutic response of Cabozantinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

Cabozantinib (CAB) as monotherapy or in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors is used for systemic treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, little is known about predictors of treatment response to CAB. For this reason, known genomic drivers were examined to identify potential predictors of treatment response with CAB.

METHODS

Twenty mRCC patients receiving monotherapy (≥ first-line) with CAB were prospectively included. DNA was extracted from archived primary tumors or metastatic tissue. Targeted DNA sequencing was performed using a gene panel including 328 genes (QIAseq Targeted DNA V3 Panel, Qiagen). The variant evaluation was performed using Varsome. The endpoints were treatment-failure-free-survival (TFFS) to CAB.

RESULTS

26% of patients received systemic RCC treatment as the primary option. Six patients were treated with CAB in first-line (1L) and 12 patients in ≥ 2L. The median follow-up after initiation of systemic treatment was 26.7 months (mo). The PBRM1 (7 alleles), SETD2 (7 alleles), VHL (11 alleles), and CHEK2 (14 alleles) genes were most frequently altered. The median time to TFFS was 10.5 mo (95% confidence interval (CI) 6.2-14.7 mo). There was a longer treatment response to CAB in patients with alterations of the SETD2 gene (SETD2 alteration median TFFS not reached vs. no SETD2 alterations 8.4 mo (95% CI 5.2-11.6 mo); p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Pathogenic variant genes may indicate treatment response to systemic therapy in mRCC. Patients with alterations of the SETD2 gene show longer responses to CAB treatment.

Time to strategy failure and treatment beyond progression in pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving nivolumab: post-hoc analysis of the Meet-URO 15 study

Background

Immunotherapies exhibit peculiar cancer response patterns in contrast to chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Some patients experience disease response after initial progression or durable responses after treatment interruption. In clinical practice, immune checkpoint inhibitors may be continued after radiological progression if clinical benefit is observed. As a result, estimating progression-free survival (PFS) based on the first disease progression may not accurately reflect the actual benefit of immunotherapy.

Methods

The Meet-URO 15 study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 571 pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. Time to strategy failure (TSF) was defined as the interval from the start of immunotherapy to definitive disease progression or death. This post-hoc analysis compared TSF to PFS and assess the response and survival outcomes between patients treatated beyond progression (TBP) and non-TBP. Moreover, we evaluated the prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score versus the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score based on TSF and PFS.

Results

Overall, 571 mRCC patients were included in the analysis. Median TSF was 8.6 months (95% CI: 7.0 - 10.1), while mPFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 5.7 - 8.5). TBP patients (N = 93) had significantly longer TSF (16.3 vs 5.5 months; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (34.8 vs 17.9 months; p < 0.001) but similar PFS compared to non-TBP patients. In TBP patients, a median delay of 9.6 months (range: 6.7-16.3) from the first to the definitive disease progression was observed, whereas non-TBP patients had overlapped median TSF and PFS (5.5 months). Moreover, TBP patients had a trend toward a higher overall response rate (33.3% vs 24.3%; p = 0.075) and disease control rate (61.3% vs 55.5%; p = 0.31). Finally, in the whole population the Meet-URO score outperformed the IMDC score in predicting both TSF (c-index: 0.63 vs 0.59) and PFS (0.62 vs 0.59).

Conclusion

We found a 2-month difference between mTSF and mPFS in mRCC patients receiving nivolumab. However, TBP patients had better outcomes, including significantly longer TSF and OS than non-TBP patients. The Meet-URO score is a reliable predictor of TSF and PFS.

[Advanced renal cell carcinoma - an overview of current systemic therapy]

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the more common tumor diseases in older adults. The only curative treatment method is surgical resection in the localized stage. Based on current study data, drug (combination) therapy in the metastatic stage is the most effective treatment option for non-resectable/metastatic RCC (mRCC). Immuno-oncological combinations of 2 Checkpoint-Inhibitors (CPI) or CPIs and Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are now standard in the first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Since the results of foundational combination therapy studies are not fully comparable due to different study design and patient populations, additional clinical and patient-related criteria are required when making individual treatment decisions. The systemic therapy of advanced RCC is therefore based on tumor extent, treatment pressure, concomitant diseases, and personal circumstances. A decision on first-line therapy should be made individually as part of a "shared decision" with the patient. The selection of a second-line systemic therapy is based on individual criteria; the data available for a well-founded classification of a possible therapy sequence after progression to first-line therapy is sparse. Further investigations to optimize systemic therapy (expansion of combination therapy to triple combination of CPI+CPI+TKI) or evaluation of therapy in other histological subtypes of renal cell carcinoma are the subject of ongoing clinical studies.

Novel Approaches with HIF-2α Targeted Therapies in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Germline inactivation of the Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) tumor suppressor is the defining hallmark in hereditary VHL disease and VHL-associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, somatic VHL mutations are also observed in patients with sporadic RCC. Loss of function VHL mutations result in constitutive activation of hypoxia-inducible factor-2 alpha (HIF-2α), which leads to increased expression of HIF target genes that promote angiogenesis and tumor growth. As of 2023, belzutifan is currently the only approved HIF-2α inhibitor for both VHL-associated and sporadic metastatic RCC (mRCC). However, there is potential for resistance with HIF-2α inhibitors which warrants novel HIF-2α-targeting strategies. In this review, we discuss the potential resistance mechanisms with belzutifan and current clinical trials evaluating novel combinations of belzutifan with other targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors which may enhance the efficacy of HIF-2α targeting. Lastly, we also discuss newer generation HIF-2α inhibitors that are currently under early investigation and outline future directions and challenges with HIF-2α inhibitors for mRCC.

A Real-World Retrospective Analysis of the Management of Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma in Canada

Locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) presents a significant challenge with high mortality rates. Platinum-based chemotherapy remains the established frontline standard of care, and a switch-maintenance strategy with immunotherapy has now emerged as a new standard for aUC patients without disease progression, following initial platinum therapy. Examining the treatment patterns is imperative, given the evolving therapeutic landscape. In this study, we conducted a retrospective medical chart review of 17 Canadian oncologists treating patients with aUC to assess unmet needs in Canadian aUC patient care. Data from 146 patient charts were analyzed, revealing important clinical insights about the management of aUC. A substantial proportion of patients (53%) presented with de novo metastatic disease, which was possibly influenced by pandemic-related care disruptions. Variability was evident in the cisplatin eligibility criteria, with a majority (70%) of oncologists utilizing a 50 mL/min threshold. Most favored four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy to spare the bone marrow for future therapies and prevent patient fatigue. Notably, some eligible patients were kept under surveillance rather than receiving maintenance therapy, suggesting a potential gap in awareness regarding evidence-based recommendations. Furthermore, managing treatment-related adverse events was found to be one of the biggest challenges in relation to maintenance immunotherapy. In conclusion, our findings provide the first comprehensive overview of aUC treatment patterns in Canada following the approval of maintenance immunotherapy, offering insights into the decision-making process and underscoring the importance of evidence-based guidelines in aUC patient management.

[A 2023 inventory in oncology news]

In 2023, the improvement of our therapeutic management has largely taken shape. The aim of our article is to highlight the major advances that will change our practices. These are not only in the field of treatment, but also in the improvement of supportive care. Here, we present these new developments organ by organ, cancer by cancer. You can read everything or concentrate on the cancers that are your areas of expertise. But this exhaustiveness should be representative of our current state of progress.

Immuno-Oncology Advances in Genitourinary Cancers

Immuno-oncology (IO) has made monumental gains in the past decade in the genitourinary space. In this review, we highlight advances with IO in renal cell carcinoma where it now has become standard-of-care frontline therapy in the metastatic setting but also discuss challenges with the initial approach. In urothelial carcinoma, we discuss the growing use of IO including exciting recent updates with IO-based regimens that may soon become the new standard of care. We further discuss difficulties with IO in prostate cancer, germ cell tumors, and penile squamous cell carcinoma. Finally, we highlight advances in IO approaches beyond checkpoint inhibition including the role of the gut microbiome and T-cell redirecting therapies.

Current status and future perspective of immunotherapy for renal cell carcinoma

In the last decade, the standard treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has evolved, mainly driven by the development and approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Currently, ICI monotherapy and ICI-based combinations with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and targeted therapies against mammalian target of rapamycin or vascular endothelial growth factor have become new standard treatments for first-line and subsequent-line therapies. ICIs play an important role as an adjuvant postoperative therapy, and this field is the subject of active research. Furthermore, ongoing randomized controlled trials are investigating the clinical value of more intense treatments by combining multiple effective treatments for RCC. Additionally, novel biomarkers for prognosis have been investigated. This study reviews the current evidence on immunotherapy as a treatment for RCC patients, randomized controlled trials, and ongoing studies including RCC patients and recent findings, and discusses future perspectives.

Perioperative systemic therapy in renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common kidney neoplasm. Localized RCC can be cured with nephrectomy. However, a proportion of patients will recur with incurable distant metastatic disease. There is a clear need for treatments to reduce the risk of RCC recurrence and thus improve survival. This review describes the landscape of perioperative therapy for RCC, focusing on more recent trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

RECENT FINDINGS

ICIs have significantly changed outcomes in advanced RCC. Four trials investigating the role of perioperative ICI for RCC are now reported. Only one trial utilizing adjuvant pembrolizumab (Keynote-564) has shown a disease-free survival benefit in resected RCC.

SUMMARY

Patients with resected RCC should be counselled on their risk of recurrence and the potential option of adjuvant pembrolizumab, recognizing that overall survival data are not yet available.

Treatment Landscape of Renal Cell Carcinoma

OPINION STATEMENT

The treatment landscape of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has evolved significantly over the past three decades. Active surveillance and tumor ablation are alternatives to extirpative therapy in appropriately selected patients. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging noninvasive alternative to treat primary RCC tumors. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has greatly improved the overall survival of advanced RCC, and now the ICI-based doublet (dual ICI-ICI doublet; or ICI in combination with a vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, ICI-TKI doublet) has become the standard frontline therapy. Based on unprecedented outcomes in the metastatic with ICIs, they are also being explored in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting for patients with high-risk disease. Adjuvant pembrolizumab has proven efficacy to reduce the risk of RCC recurrence after nephrectomy. Historically considered a radioresistant tumor, SBRT occupies an expanding role to treat RCC with oligometastasis or oligoprogression in combination with systemic therapy. Furthermore, SBRT is being investigated in combination with ICI-doublet in the advanced disease setting. Lastly, given the treatment paradigm is shifting to adopt ICIs at earlier disease course, the prospective studies guiding treatment sequencing in the post-ICI setting is maturing. The effort is ongoing in search of predictive biomarkers to guide optimal treatment option in RCC.

Efficacy and safety of second-line cabozantinib after immuno-oncology combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma: Japanese multicenter retrospective study

Immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapy is utilized as a first-line systemic treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. However, evidence supporting the use of cabozantinib after IO combination therapy is lacking. We retrospectively analyzed patients who received second-line cabozantinib after IO combination therapy using the Japanese Urological Oncology Group (JUOG) database. In total, 254 patients were enrolled in the JUOG global study, and 118 patients who received second-line cabozantinib comprised the study cohort. The objective response rate, disease control rate, second-line cabozantinib progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival from second-line for overall were 32%, 75%, 10.5 months, and not reached, respectively, for first-line IO-IO therapy were 37%, 77%, 11.1 months, and not reached, respectively, versus 24%, 71%, 8.3 months, and not reached, respectively, for first-line IO-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. In univariate and multivariate analyses, discontinuation of first-line treatment because of progressive disease and liver metastasis were independent risk factors for PFS. All-grade adverse events occurred in 72% of patients, and grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 28% of patients. Second line-cabozantinib after first-line IO combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma was expected to be effective after either IO-IO or IO-TKI treatment and feasible in real-world practice.

Genitourinary cancers updates: highlights from ASCO 2023

Significant scientific advances in immunotherapy and targeted therapy approaches have improved clinical outcomes and increased treatment options for patients with genitourinary (GU) malignancies. We highlight the clinical trial developments released at the ASCO 2023 annual meeting, including PARP inhibitors for prostate cancer, antibody drug conjugates and fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors for urothelial cancer, and HIF2a inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma. Novel agents such as bispecific antibodies, chimeric antigen receptor T-cells, and radiopharmaceuticals are currently in early phase development and also have high potential impact for the GU cancer landscape. With more treatment options, the field will need to define best treatment sequencing to optimize outcomes for each patient.

Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib after Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

A total of 137 HCC patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab from October 2020 to September 2022 were enrolled. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from the beginning of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab were 21.1 months (range, 18.8 months-not reached) and 10.5 months (range, 8.2-12.1 months), respectively. Fifty patients were diagnosed with progressive disease after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Of this group, 24 patients were administered lenvatinib, and the median OS and PFS from the beginning of lenvatinib were 15.3 months (range, 10.5 months-not reached) and 4.0 months (range, 2.5-6.4 months), respectively. The objective response rates based on the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECISTs) criteria version 1.1 and modified RECISTs were 33.3% and 54.2%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the median serum alpha-fetoprotein level between before and after lenvatinib. In the multivariate analysis, Child-Pugh class A (hazard ratio 0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02-0.76, p = 0.02) and intrahepatic tumor occupancy rate < 50% (hazard ratio < 0.01, 95% CI 0.003-0.35, p < 0.01) were the significant factors for OS. There were some frequent adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with lenvatinib such as hypertension, fatigue, anorexia, proteinuria, and so on, but none directly caused death. In conclusion, lenvatinib after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable HCC should be considered an effective treatment option.

Molecular insight into renal cancer and latest therapeutic approaches to tackle it: an updated review

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most lethal genitourinary cancers, with the highest mortality rate, and may remain undetected throughout its development. RCC can be sporadic or hereditary. Exploring the underlying genetic abnormalities in RCC will have important implications for understanding the origins of nonhereditary renal cancers. The treatment of RCC has evolved over centuries from the era of cytokines to targeted therapy to immunotherapy. A surgical cure is the primary treatment modality, especially for organ-confined diseases. Furthermore, the urologic oncology community focuses on nephron-sparing surgical approaches and ablative procedures when small renal masses are detected incidentally in conjunction with interventional radiologists. In addition to new combination therapies approved for RCC treatment, several trials have been conducted to investigate the potential benefits of certain drugs. This may lead to durable responses and more extended survival benefits for patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). Several approved drugs have reduced the mortality rate of patients with RCC by targeting VEGF signaling and mTOR. This review better explains the signaling pathways involved in the RCC progression, oncometabolites, and essential biomarkers in RCC that can be used for its diagnosis. Further, it provides an overview of the characteristics of RCC carcinogenesis to assist in combating treatment resistance, as well as details about the current management and future therapeutic options. In the future, multimodal and integrated care will be available, with new treatment options emerging as we learn more about the disease.

Tailored immunotherapy approach with nivolumab with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab as immunotherapeutic boost in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (TITAN-RCC): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is approved as first-line regimen for intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and nivolumab monotherapy as second-line therapy for all risk groups. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination as an immunotherapeutic boost after no response to nivolumab monotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk and poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

TITAN-RCC is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, done at 28 hospitals and cancer centres across Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk or poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were formerly untreated (first-line population) or pretreated with one previous systemic therapy (anti-angiogenic or temsirolimus; second-line population) were eligible. Patients had to have a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70 and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). Patients started with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks. On early progressive disease (week 8) or non-response at week 16, patients received two or four doses of intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) boosts (once every 3 weeks), whereas responders continued with intravenous nivolumab (240 mg, once every 2 weeks), but could receive two to four boost doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for subsequent progressive disease. The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study medication; safety was also assessed in this population. An objective response rate of more than 25% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show improvement, on the basis of results from the pivotal phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02917772, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 28, 2016, and Nov 30, 2018, 207 patients were enrolled and all received nivolumab induction (109 patients in the first-line group; 98 patients in the second-line group). 60 (29%) of 207 patients were female and 147 (71%) were male. 147 (71%) of 207 patients had intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma and 51 (25%) had poor-risk disease. After median follow-up of 27·6 months (IQR 10·5-34·8), 39 (36%, 90% CI 28-44; p=0·0080) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 31 (32%, 24-40; p=0·083) of 98 patients in the second-line group had a confirmed objective response for nivolumab with and without nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Confirmed response to nivolumab at week 8 or 16 was observed in 31 (28%) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 18 (18%) of 98 patients in the second-line group. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (reported in ≥5% of patients) were increased lipase (15 [7%] of 207 patients), colitis (13 [6%]), and diarrhoea (13 [6%]). Three deaths were reported that were deemed to be treatment-related: one due to possible ischaemic stroke, one due to respiratory failure, and one due to pneumonia.

INTERPRETATION

In treatment-naive patients, nivolumab induction with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts significantly improved the objective response rate compared with that reported for nivolumab monotherapy in the CheckMate-025 trial. However, overall efficacy seemed inferior when compared with approved upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For second-line treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab could be a rescue strategy on progression with approved nivolumab monotherapy.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb.

The cancer-immunity cycle: Indication, genotype, and immunotype

The cancer-immunity cycle provides a framework to understand the series of events that generate anti-cancer immune responses. It emphasizes the iterative nature of the response where the killing of tumor cells by T cells initiates subsequent rounds of antigen presentation and T cell stimulation, maintaining active immunity and adapting it to tumor evolution. Any step of the cycle can become rate-limiting, rendering the immune system unable to control tumor growth. Here, we update the cancer-immunity cycle based on the remarkable progress of the past decade. Understanding the mechanism of checkpoint inhibition has evolved, as has our view of dendritic cells in sustaining anti-tumor immunity. We additionally account for the role of the tumor microenvironment in facilitating, not just suppressing, the anti-cancer response, and discuss the importance of considering a tumor's immunological phenotype, the "immunotype". While these new insights add some complexity to the cycle, they also provide new targets for research and therapeutic intervention.

Emerging resistance vs. losing response to immune check point inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma: two differing phenomena

The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and has dramatically improved the outcomes of patients. The use of monotherapy or combinations of ICIs targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4, as well as the addition of ICIs with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, has significantly enhanced the overall survival of mRCC patients. Despite these promising results, there remains a subset of patients who either do not respond to treatment (primary resistance) or develop resistance to therapy over time (acquired resistance). Understanding the mechanisms underlying the development of resistance to ICI treatment is crucial in the management of mRCC, as they can be used to identify new targets for innovative therapeutic strategies. Currently, there is an unmet need to develop new predictive and prognostic biomarkers that can aid in the development of personalized treatment options for mRCC patients. In this review, we summarize several mechanisms of ICI resistance in RCC, including alterations in tumor microenvironment, upregulation of alternative immune checkpoint pathways, and genetic and epigenetic changes. Additionally, we highlight potential strategies that can be used to overcome resistance, such as combination therapy, targeted therapy, and immune modulation.

Intermediate endpoints as surrogates for outcomes in cancer immunotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 trials

Background

Cancer immunotherapy shows unique efficacy kinetics that differs from conventional treatment. These characteristics may lead to the prolongation of trial duration, hence reliable surrogate endpoints are urgently needed. We aimed to systematically evaluate the study-level performance of commonly reported intermediate clinical endpoints for surrogacy in cancer immunotherapy.

Methods

We searched the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases, between database inception and October 18, 2022, for phase 3 randomised trials investigating the efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. An updated search was done on July, 15, 2023. No language restrictions were used. Eligible trials had to set overall survival (OS) as the primary or co-primary endpoint and report at least one intermediate clinical endpoint including objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and 1-year overall survival. Other key inclusion and exclusion criteria included: (1) adult patients (>18 years old) with advanced solid tumour; (2) no immunotherapy conducted in the control arms; (3) follow-up is long enough to achieve OS; (4) data should be public available. A two-stage meta-analytic approach was conducted to evaluate the magnitude of the association between these intermediate endpoints and OS. A surrogate was identified if the coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.7 or greater. Leave-one-out cross-validation and pre-defined subgroup analysis were conducted to examine the heterogeneity. Potential publication bias was evaluated using the Egger's and Begg's tests. This trial was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022381648.

Findings

52,342 patients with 15 types of tumours from 77 phase 3 studies were included. ORR (R2 = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.00-0.24), DCR (R2 = 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00-0.01), and PFS (R2 = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23-0.56) showed weak associations with OS. However, a strong correlation was observed between 1-year survival and clinical outcome (R2 = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83). These associations remained relatively consistent across pre-defined subgroups stratified based on tumour types, masking methods, line of treatments, drug targets, treatment strategies, and follow-up durations. No significant heterogeneities or publication bias were identified.

Interpretation

1-year milestone survival was the only identified surrogacy endpoint for outcomes in cancer immunotherapy. Ongoing investigations and development of new endpoints and incorporation of biomarkers are needed to identify potential surrogate markers that can be more robust than 1-year survival. This work may provide important references in assisting the design and interpretation of future clinical trials, and constitute complementary information in drafting clinical practice guidelines.

Funding

None.