Avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma: Japanese subgroup analysis from JAVELIN Renal 101

High real-world incidence of hepatic dysfunction from cabozantinib plus nivolumab for Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

The real-world incidence of hepatic dysfunction after combination therapy with cabozantinib plus nivolumab (CABO+NIVO) in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma remains undetermined; hence, this study aimed to determine the incidence of hepatotoxicity in these patients.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients treated with CABO+NIVO were enrolled in this study. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were used to evaluate liver dysfunction because of its liver specificity.

RESULTS

ALT elevation of any grade was found in 30 patients (63%), and grade 3 elevation was found in eight patients (17%). No grade 4 or 5 elevations were observed. Female gender and a higher body mass index were independent predictive factors for ALT elevation. All patients were managed with dose reduction or interruption of cabozantinib and concomitant use of hepatoprotective agents without high-dose corticosteroids. Of the seven patients that underwent cabozantinib rechallenge after grade 3 ALT elevation, only two (23%) required re-interruption due to repeat grade 3 ALT elevation.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to examine hepatic dysfunction caused by CABO+NIVO in Japanese patients. The incidence of hepatic dysfunction was higher in real-world patients than in global patients found in pivotal phase 3 trials. Cabozantinib appeared to be a major cause of hepatic dysfunction since dose reduction or interruption of cabozantinib without the use of corticosteroids resolved hepatotoxicity. In addition, additional care should be taken when treating female or obese patients with CABO+NIVO.

First-line pembrolizumab-axitinib versus sunitinib in metastatic RCC: subgroup analysis of patients enrolled in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 in Eastern Asia

BACKGROUND

The phase 3 open-label KEYNOTE-426 study demonstrated that first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a global population. This subgroup analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab-axitinib versus sunitinib in patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-426 in East Asia (Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan).

METHODS

Adults with clear cell mRCC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks with oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily or oral sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS, assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and safety.

RESULTS

The East Asian subgroup comprised 130 patients (pembrolizumab-axitinib, n = 62; sunitinib, n = 68; 15.1% of the global intention-to-treat population). Compared with sunitinib, pembrolizumab-axitinib OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-1.44; 36-month rates, 62.9% and 58.8%, respectively] and PFS HR was 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.92) in favor of pembrolizumab-axitinib. ORR favored pembrolizumab-axitinib (64.5% vs 44.1% for sunitinib). The results were generally consistent with the intention-to-treat population. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 69.4% of patients on pembrolizumab-axitinib and 74.6% on sunitinib; 16 (25.8%) patients on pembrolizumab-axitinib and 17 (25.4%) patients on sunitinib discontinued due to adverse events. No deaths from TRAEs occurred.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab-axitinib improved efficacy for East Asian patients with untreated clear cell mRCC, consistent with results from the global population. Safety was manageable. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02853331.

Real-world outcomes with avelumab + axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japan: subgroup analyses from the J-DART2 study by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk classification

BACKGROUND

Avelumab + axitinib was approved for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in Japan in December 2019. We report long-term real-world subgroup analyses with first-line avelumab + axitinib in patients with aRCC by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk classification from the J-DART2 study in Japan.

METHODS

J-DART2 was a multicenter, noninterventional, retrospective study examining characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes in patients with aRCC who started first-line avelumab + axitinib in Japan between December 2019 and October 2022.

RESULTS

Data from 150 patients across 19 sites were analyzed. IMDC risk was favorable in 39 patients (26.0%), intermediate (1 risk factor) in 46 (30.7%), intermediate (2 risk factors) in 36 (24.0%), and poor in 29 (19.3%). Baseline characteristics were generally consistent across IMDC risk subgroups. In subgroups with favorable, intermediate (1 risk factor), intermediate (2 risk factors), and poor risk, median progression-free survival was 31.0, 15.3, 16.4, and 8.1 months; median overall survival (OS) was not reached, but 24-month OS rates were 95.2%, 91.3%, 85.3%, and 57.6%, respectively. Objective response rates were 54.5%, 56.8%, 47.1%, and 54.2%, respectively. High-dose corticosteroid treatment for immune-related adverse events was administered in 5.1%, 8.7%, 8.3%, and 6.9% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Subgroup analyses from J-DART2 confirm the long-term real-world effectiveness of first-line avelumab + axitinib across IMDC risk groups in patients with aRCC in Japan. Our findings were consistent with previous analyses by IMDC risk and support the favorable benefit-risk profile of avelumab + axitinib in clinical practice in Japan.

Post-marketing surveillance data for avelumab + axitinib treatment in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japan: Subgroup analyses by pathological classification

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of avelumab + axitinib in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). However, information is limited regarding the activity of avelumab + axitinib in patients with non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC). In Japan, post-marketing surveillance (PMS) of patients with RCC receiving avelumab + axitinib treatment in general clinical practice was undertaken. We report ad hoc analyses of PMS data according to RCC pathological classification.

METHODS

Of 328 patients with RCC who received ≥1 dose of avelumab and were enrolled between December 2019 and May 2021, 271 (82.6%) had ccRCC, 22 (6.7%) had nccRCC, and 35 (10.7%) had missing or unknown RCC pathology. Among patients with nccRCC, pathological subtypes were papillary in 12 (3.7%), translocation in 3 (0.9%), acquired cystic disease associated in 3 (0.9%), chromophobe in 2 (0.6%), mucinous tubular and spindle cell in 1 (0.3%), and Bellini duct in 1 (0.3%).

RESULTS

Among patients with ccRCC or nccRCC, any-grade adverse drug reactions of safety specifications occurred in 140 (51.7%) and 15 (68.2%), and of grade ≥3 in 48 (17.7%) and 6 (27.3%), respectively. The objective response rate in patients with ccRCC or nccRCC was 36.9% and 22.7%, respectively; in patients with papillary tumors, it was 33.3%. Median overall survival was not reached in patients with ccRCC or nccRCC, and 12-month overall survival rates were 86.8% and 76.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, subgroup analyses of PMS data suggest that avelumab + axitinib improved clinical outcomes in nccRCC in addition to ccRCC.

Incidence and survival patterns of clear cell renal cell carcinoma from 2000 to 2017: A SEER Database Analysis

Background: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) incidence and death have considerably changed in recent years. Our study aimed to investigate the incidence, survival, and tumor characteristics of ccRCC in the year of diagnosis. Methods: Our study participants were selected from the SEER database (2000-2017). Age-standardized incidence rates were calculated to compare incidence rates across time. In addition, we used Kaplan-Meier curves to calculate overall survival (OS) and Cox proportional hazards models to explore risk factors associated with mortality outcomes in patients with ccRCC. Results: In the SEER analysis from 2000 to 2017, the increasing trend in age-adjusted incidence of ccRCC has remained relatively stable over the years, increasing from 2.63 per 100,000 in 2000 to 8.79 per 100,000 in 2017. The increase in the incidence of patients at a localized stage plays a decisive role in the overall increase in the incidence of ccRCC. Conclusions: In the general population, patients diagnosed between 2009-2017 had a higher survival rate than those diagnosed between 2000-2008, which is consistent with all stages of the tumor. The incidence of ccRCC increases steadily with the year of diagnosis, while overall survival has significantly improved.

Real-world outcomes of avelumab plus axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japan: long-term follow-up from the J-DART2 retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Avelumab + axitinib was approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in Japan in December 2019. We report long-term real-world outcomes with first-line avelumab + axitinib from the J-DART2 study in Japan.

METHODS

J-DART2 was a multicenter, noninterventional, retrospective study examining clinical data from patients with curatively unresectable locally advanced or metastatic RCC who started treatment with first-line avelumab + axitinib in Japan between December 2019 and October 2022. Endpoints included patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Data from 150 patients across 19 sites were analyzed; median follow-up was 18.7 months (95% CI, 16.3-20.6 months). Median age was 70.5 years; 26.0% of patients were aged ≤64 years, 42.7% were aged 65-74 years, and 31.3% were aged ≥75 years. International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk was favorable in 26.0%, intermediate in 54.7% (1 risk factor in 30.7%; 2 risk factors in 24.0%), and poor in 19.3% of patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17.1 months, with 1- and 2-year PFS rates of 57.7% and 37.5%, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached, with 1- and 2-year OS rates of 90.6% and 84.7%, respectively. Objective response rate was 53.3%; disease control rate was 88.9%. Outcomes were similar across age groups, including patients aged ≥75 years.

CONCLUSIONS

J-DART2 is the largest retrospective study to report long-term real-world outcomes in patients with aRCC treated with avelumab + axitinib in Japan. Findings were similar to those observed in previous studies and support the benefit of avelumab + axitinib in clinical practice in Japan.

Final Analysis of Post-Marketing Surveillance for Avelumab + Axitinib in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Avelumab, an anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody, was approved in combination with axitinib for curatively unresectable or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Japan in December 2019. Because the pivotal JAVELIN Renal 101 study included a limited number of Japanese patients, post-marketing surveillance (PMS) was required to evaluate outcomes (safety and effectiveness) in patients with RCC who received avelumab + axitinib treatment in clinical practice in Japan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We report data from prospective, noncomparative, multicenter, observational PMS in patients with RCC who received ≥ 1 dose of avelumab. Patients were enrolled between December 2019 (date of regulatory approval) and May 2021. The primary objective was to evaluate safety, defined as adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of safety specifications occurring during an observation period of ≤ 52 weeks for each patient. The secondary objective was to evaluate effectiveness, including best overall response and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

In total, 328 patients were included in the safety and effectiveness analysis sets. Overall, 173 patients (52.7%) had ADRs of safety specifications of any grade, most commonly thyroid dysfunction (n = 69 [21.0%]), infusion reaction (n = 65 [19.8%]), and hepatic disorders (n = 45 [13.7%]). Objective responses occurred in 118 patients (36.0%), including complete or partial responses in 13 (4.0%) and 105 (32.0%), respectively; the disease control rate was 75.6%. The 12-month OS rate was 83.7% (95% CI, 78.9%-87.4%).

DISCUSSION

This PMS confirmed the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of avelumab + axitinib in patients with RCC in clinical practice in Japan, with a benefit-risk profile comparable to that observed in clinical trials.

Avelumab + axitinib treatment in older patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japan: Subgroup analyses of post-marketing surveillance data by age

INTRODUCTION

Avelumab + axitinib was approved in Japan in December 2019 for the treatment of curatively unresectable or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on results from the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of avelumab + axitinib in older patients in general clinical practice in Japan, an ad hoc analysis of data from post-marketing surveillance (PMS) by age group was conducted.

RESULTS

The analysis population included 328 patients who had received ≥1 dose of avelumab and were enrolled between December 2019 and May 2021. In total, 100 patients (30.5%) were aged ≤64 years, 130 (39.6%) were aged 65-74 years, and 98 (29.9%) were aged ≥75 years. Within these age groups, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of safety specifications of any grade occurred in 46 (46.0%), 71 (54.6%), and 56 (57.1%), and of grade ≥3 in 13 (13.0%), 23 (17.7%), and 20 (20.4%), respectively. The most common ADRs of safety specifications across all age groups were thyroid dysfunction, infusion reactions, and hepatic function disorders. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in any age group; 12-month OS rates in patients aged ≤64, 65-74, or ≥75 years were 83.8%, 86.2%, and 80.0%, and objective response rates were 31.0%, 43.8%, and 30.6%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Analyses of PMS data show the safety and effectiveness of avelumab + axitinib across all age groups of patients with RCC in general clinical practice in Japan. The favorable benefit-risk profile was generally consistent with that observed in previous clinical trials.

Prevalence and management of proteinuria associated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment in advanced renal cell carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and thyroid cancer

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) are often used for treatment of several types of cancer; however, they are associated with an increased risk of proteinuria, sometimes leading to treatment discontinuation. We searched PubMed and Scopus to identify clinical studies examining the incidence and risk factors for proteinuria caused by VEGFR-TKIs in patients with renal cell carcinoma, thyroid cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The global incidence of proteinuria ranged from 6% to 34% for all grades of proteinuria, and from 1% to 10% for grade ≥3 proteinuria. The incidence of proteinuria did not differ significantly by cancer type, but in all three cancer types, there was a trend toward a higher incidence of proteinuria with lenvatinib than with other VEGFR-TKIs. In terms of risk factors, the incidence of proteinuria was significantly higher among Asians (including Japanese) compared with non-Asian populations. Other risk factors included diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and previous nephrectomy. When grade 3/4 proteinuria occurs, patients should be treated according to the criteria for dose reduction or withdrawal specified for each drug. For grade 2 proteinuria, treatment should be continued when the benefits outweigh the risks. Referral to a nephrologist should be considered for symptoms related to decreased renal function or when proteinuria has not improved after medication withdrawal. These management practices should be implemented universally, regardless of the cancer type.

Real-world outcomes of avelumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japan: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study (J-DART)

OBJECTIVES

In the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved in patients treated with first-line avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib. Here we evaluate real-world outcomes with first-line avelumab plus axitinib in Japanese patients with aRCC.

METHODS

In this multicenter, noninterventional, retrospective study, clinical data from patients with aRCC treated with first-line avelumab plus axitinib between December 2019 and December 2020 in Japan were reviewed. Endpoints included ORR and PFS per investigator assessment, and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD).

RESULTS

Data from 48 patients (median age, 69 years) from 12 sites were analyzed. Median follow-up was 10.4 months (range, 2.6-16.5), and median duration of treatment was 7.4 months (range, 0.5-16.5). International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk category was favorable, intermediate, or poor in 16.7%, 54.2%, and 29.2% of patients, respectively. The ORR was 48.8% (95% CI, 33.3%-64.5%), including complete response in 3/43 patients (7.0%). Thirteen patients (27.1%) had disease progression or died, and median PFS was 15.3 months (95% CI, 9.7 months - not estimable). At data cutoff, 24 patients (50.0%) were still receiving avelumab plus axitinib, and median TTD was 15.2 months (95% CI, 7.4 months - not estimable). Three patients (6.3%) received high-dose corticosteroid treatment for immune-related adverse events, and 8 (16.7%) received treatment for infusion-related reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the first real-world evidence of the effectiveness and tolerability of first-line avelumab plus axitinib in Japanese patients with aRCC. Results were comparable with the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial.

First-line treatment with camrelizumab plus famitinib in advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥1%: results from a multicenter, open-label, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

The combination of immune-checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents can synergistically modulate the tumor microenvironment and represents a promising treatment option. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of camrelizumab plus famitinib (a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor) as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with a programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) of ≥1%, in an open-label, multicenter, phase 2 basket trial.

METHODS

Eligible patients received camrelizumab (200 mg once every 3 weeks via intravenous infusion) plus oral famitinib at an initial dose of 20 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR), as assessed by the investigator per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Key secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), duration of respons, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), 12-month OS rate, and safety profile.

RESULTS

Of the enrolled 41 patients, 21 (51.2%) had a PD-L1 TPS of 1-49%. As of the cut-off date on June 22, 2022, the combination regimen of camrelizumab and famitinib achieved an ORR of 53.7% (95% CI 37.4% to 69.3%) and a DCR of 92.7% (95% CI 80.1% to 98.5%). The median PFS was 16.6 months (95% CI 8.3 to not reached), and OS data were not yet mature, with an estimated 12-month OS rate of 76.8% (95% CI 60.0% to 87.3%). The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher included hypertension (22.0%), increased alanine aminotransferase (12.2%), decreased neutrophil count (9.8%), proteinuria (7.3%), decrease platelet count (7.3%), and hypokalemia (7.3%). One (2.4%) patient died from grade 5 hemoptysis, which was considered possibly related to the study treatment by the investigator.

CONCLUSION

Camrelizumab plus famitinib demonstrated promising antitumor activity in advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients and had an acceptable safety profile. These findings suggest that this combination regimen could be an alternative therapeutic option and warrant further investigation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04346381.

Optimization of first-line systemic therapy in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Although five immune-oncologic-drug-based combination therapies, such as ipilimumab plus nivolumab, avelumab plus axitinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, have been approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Japan, the optimal therapy for advanced RCC has not been determined. Without head-to-head comparison, several network meta-analyses using phase 3 clinical trials presented the highest likelihood of maximal overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate according to several categories such as the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group, programmed cell death 1-ligand 1 expression, sarcomatoid features, or the safety profile of treatment-related adverse events; however, they did not include the results of additional long-term follow-up data in each clinical trial. In the real world, advanced RCC treatment depends on several factors, such as age, comorbidity, tumor burden, or the presence of symptoms that affect daily life. To relieve tumor-related symptoms, tumor burden reduction is required, which may lead to the use of therapies with high response rates and low risk of disease progression. Moreover, patients with comorbidities, such as uncontrolled diabetes, are required to avoid steroid therapy for adverse events, which may necessitate the use of therapies with a low incidence of adverse events that are needed for high-dose steroids or permanent steroid replacement therapy. Moreover, novel drugs, such as the hypoxia-inducible factor 2a inhibitor (belzutifan) or immunostimulatory interleukin-2 cytokine prodrug (bempegaldesleukin) have been developed, and phase 3 clinical trials of combination therapy using these drugs for treatment-naïve advanced RCC are ongoing. Further development of systemic therapies for advanced RCC is required.

First-line therapy for adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Therapeutic Combinations Based on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors or Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Monotherapy for First-Line Therapy of Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Outside of Clinical Trials: A Real-World Retrospective Multi-Institutional Study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have demonstrated the superior efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapy over sunitinib, a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. However, such benefits have not been elucidated in populations outside of clinical trials.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated data from 467 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received ICI-based combination therapy or TKIs, as first-line therapy. Clinical outcome was compared between ICI-based combination therapy and TKIs in each population divided according to trial eligibility.

RESULTS

Among 152 patients treated with ICI-based combination therapy and 315 patients treated with TKIs, 76 (50.0%) and 156 (49.5%) were trial ineligible, respectively. Overall survival (p = 0.0072) and objective response rate (p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in ICI-based combination therapy than in TKIs, but progression-free survival was comparable (p = 0.681). In the trial-eligible population, overall survival was longer (p = 0.0906) and the objective response rate was significantly higher (p = 0.0124) in ICI-based combination therapy than in TKIs. In the trial-ineligible population, overall survival (p = 0.0208) and objective response rate (p = 0.0006) were significantly higher with ICI-based combination therapy than with TKIs. A multivariate analysis also showed that ICI-based combination therapy was independently associated with prolonged overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.47; p = 0.0016). Regardless of trial eligibility, progression-free survival did not differ between ICI-based combination therapy and TKIs (trial eligible: p = 0.287; trial ineligible: p = 0.0708).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study, using real-world data, provides evidence indicating the therapeutic benefit of ICI-based combination therapy over TKIs for advanced renal cell carcinoma was more statistically significant in the trial-ineligible population than in the trial-eligible population.

The Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor and Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Combination Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Real-World Cohort Study

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) as first-line therapy for patients diagnosed as having advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We enrolled 51 patients to receive ICI+TKI therapy for mRCC at 9 Japanese institutions. The overall survival (OS) of the patients treated with ICI+TKI was the primary endpoint., and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Furthermore, we analyzed the clinical prognostic and predictive factors in patients with mRCC treated with ICI+TKI therapy. Seven months was the median follow-up period. The OS rates at 6, 12, and 18 months were 93.1, 82.5, and 68.8%, respectively. The median PFS for patients who received ICI+TKI was 19.0 months, ORR was 68.6%, and DCR was 88.2%. ICI+TKI-related adverse events occurred in 43 patients (84.3%) with any grade and in 22 patients (43.1%) with grade ≥3. Treatment selection with poor prognostic factors may be prudent, even though ICI+TKI is an efficacious and safe first-line treatment in patients with mRCC.

Normalization of tumor vasculature: A potential strategy to increase the efficiency of immune checkpoint blockades in cancers

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) eliminate tumor cells by reactivating CD8 + T cells using the cytotoxic effects of the immune system. However, in this process, tumor angiogenic factors and abnormal formation of tumor blood vessels are not conducive to the treatment of ICIs. In the tumor microenvironment (TME), proangiogenic factors prevent dendritic cell maturation, reduce T cell infiltration, and recruit inhibitory immune cells such as regulatory T (Treg) cells. Abnormal tumor blood vessels also prevent immune cells and chemotherapy drugs from reaching the target effectively and lead to poor perfusion and severe hypoxia of the tumor. Treatment with antiangiogenic inhibitors can block the transmission of abnormal angiogenesis signals and promote the normalization of tumor vasculature. Therefore, the combination of antiangiogenic inhibitors and ICIs is used in clinical therapy. Combination therapy has been proven theoretically feasible in preclinical trials, and many clinical trials have been completed to confirm its safety and efficacy.

Immunotherapy in Genitourinary Malignancy: Evolution in Revolution or Revolution in Evolution

Immunotherapy, the 5th pillar of cancer care after surgery, radiotherapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and precision therapy (molecular targeted therapy), is revolutionizing the standard of care in certain patients with genitourinary malignancies. As modest clinical benefits of IL-2 for metastatic renal cell carcinoma and Bacillus Calmette-Guerin therapy for early-stage bladder cancers in the past years, immune checkpoint inhibitors therapies demonstrate meaningful survival benefit and durable clinical response in renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and some prostate cancer. Despite best efforts, the benefits are limited to a minority of unselected patients due to the complexities of biomarker development. Now come the next hurdles: figuring out which patients best respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors and which patients won't respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors? How best to approach immune checkpoint inhibitors therapies to extend/maximize the treatment response as long as possible? How to overcome therapeutic resistance by specific concurrent immunomodulators or targeted therapy or chemotherapy? The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination or sequencing with chemotherapy or other targeted therapies or other immunomodulating therapeutics in the early disease, neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic setting is actively under exploration. Ideal strategy for cancer care is to provide not just more time, but more quality time: there remain unmet needs for novel therapies that exploit molecular or genetic pathways to extend survival without compromising health-related quality of life for patients with advanced genitourinary malignancies. Further research is needed to discover new therapeutic strategies, and validate efficacy and effectiveness in real-world settings.

Changes in Real-World Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma from the Molecular-Targeted Therapy Era to the Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Era

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of changes in the outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the molecular-targeted therapy era to the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) era remains limited in the real-world setting.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to clarify outcome changes from the previous molecular-targeted therapy era to the current ICI era in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma using multi-institution real-world data.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 415 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received first-line systemic therapy at five Japanese institutions between January 2008 and August 2021. We divided the patients into two groups based on the treatment era: molecular-targeted therapy era (January 2008-August 2018) and ICI era (September 2018-August 2021). According to the era, progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate from first-line systemic therapy were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 304 (73.3%) and 111 (26.7%) patients were categorized into the molecular-targeted therapy and ICI eras, respectively. The proportion of patients without prior nephrectomy (p = 0.0030) or those with low Karnofsky Performance Status scores [≤ 70] (p = 0.0258) were significantly higher in the ICI era group. The patients in the ICI era group had significantly longer overall survival (median: not reached vs 23.2 months, p = 0.0001) and a higher objective response rate (47.8% vs 24.7%, p < 0.0001) than those in the molecular-targeted therapy era group, and progression-free survival tended to be longer in the ICI era group (median: 13.3 vs 8.75 months, p = 0.0579). Multivariate analysis further showed that the treatment era (ICI vs molecular-targeted therapy) was an independent factor for overall survival and objective response (both, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present multi-institution real-world data showed the improved outcome of previously untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the ICI era group compared with that in the molecular-targeted therapy era group. These findings strongly encourage the use of ICI-based treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the real-world setting. Further studies with extended follow-up periods are needed to confirm our findings.

The Effects of Axitinib plus Tislelizumab in the Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Objective. To study and analyze the clinical efficacy of axitinib combined with tislelizumab in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and its effects on renal function and serum cytokines. Methods. Totally 49 patients with advanced renal cancer treated in our hospital from November 2018 to January 2020 were randomized to treatment with axitinib (control group, n = 27) or axitinib combined with tislelizumab (study group, n = 22). The clinical efficacy, renal function and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results. After treatment, both groups showed a significant decrease in blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and serum creatinine (SCR), but treatment with axitinib plus tislelizumab led to a significantly greater reduction than did the axitinib (each $p<0.05$ ). After treatment, both groups showed a significant decrease in TNF-β1, VEGF, TIMP-1, and MMP-2, but treatment with axitinib plus tislelizumab led to a significantly greater reduction than did the axitinib (each $p<0.05$ ). The study group had significantly higher rates of adverse reactions ( $p<0.05$ ). Significant difference was observed in ORR (59.1% vs 40.7%) and DCR (81.8% vs 66.7%) between the study group and the control group, with higher results in study group ( $p<0.05$ ). The study group was superior to the control group in OS ( $p<0.05$ ). Conclusion. Our study presents an effective alternative for advanced renal cell carcinoma by using axitinib plus tislelizumab. Limitations merit attention, and the study group had higher rates of adverse reactions. Therefore, further studies are suggested to secure a larger population of subjects.

Second-line treatment with axitinib plus toripalimab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter study

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of second-line treatment with axitinib plus toripalimab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and failure of VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Methods: Data were collected restropectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards model determined the efficacy outcomes. Results: In 57 patients, objective response rate was 31.6% and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.7 months, while median overall survival was not reached. Median PFS was not reached in favorable-risk patients, whereas PFS of 11.0 and 7.8 months were observed in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, respectively (p = 0.011). The treatment-related toxicities were mild in nature. Conclusion: Second-line therapy with axitinib plus toripalimab provided durable response rate, longer PFS and a tolerable safety profile.

Apigenin inhibits renal cell carcinoma cell proliferation through G2/M phase cell cycle arrest

Apigenin is a flavonoid widely presented in fruits and vegetables, and is known to possess anti‑inflammatory, antioxidant, and anticancer properties. The present study was designed to investigate the effects of apigenin on renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cells. These effects on cell growth were evaluated using a cell counting kit, while cell cycle distribution was investigated by flow cytometry following propidium iodide DNA staining. The human RCC cell lines, Caki‑1, ACHN, and NC65, were each treated with 1‑100 µM apigenin for 24 h, which resulted in concentration‑dependent cell growth inhibition, with the effects confirmed by trypan blue staining. Furthermore, even when the apigenin treatment period was shortened to 3 h, the same cytostatic effect on RCC cells was noted. Similarly, a concentration‑dependent cell growth inhibitory effect was also observed in primary RCC cells, as apigenin induced G2/M phase cell cycle arrest and reduced the expression levels of cyclin A, B1, D3, and E in RCC cells in both dose‑ and time‑dependent manners. These findings suggest the possibility of the use of apigenin as a novel therapeutic strategy for treatment of RCC due to its anticancer activity and ability to function as a cell cycle modulating agent.

Combination of Anti-Angiogenics and Checkpoint Inhibitors for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Is the Whole Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts?

Simple Summary

Checkpoint inhibitors and anti-angiogenic therapies are treatments that slow the progression of renal cell carcinoma, the most common type of kidney cancer. Checkpoint inhibitors and anti-angiogenic therapies work in different ways. Checkpoint inhibitors help to prevent tumors from hiding from the body’s immune system, while anti-angiogenic therapies slow the development of blood vessels that tumours need to help them to grow. Studies have shown that treatment with combination checkpoint inhibitor plus anti-angiogenic therapy can achieve better outcomes for patients with renal cell carcinoma than treatment with anti-angiogenic therapy alone. In this review, we consider how combination checkpoint inhibitor plus anti-angiogenic therapy works, and we review the current literature to identify evidence to inform clinicians as to the most effective way to use these different types of drugs, either one after the other, or together, for maximum patient benefit.

Abstract

Anti-angiogenic agents, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and anti-VEGF antibodies, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are standard treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). In the past, these agents were administered as sequential monotherapies. Recently, combinations of anti-angiogenic agents and CPIs have been approved for the treatment of aRCC, based on evidence that they provide superior efficacy when compared with sunitinib monotherapy. Here we explore the possible mechanisms of action of these combinations, including a review of relevant preclinical data and clinical evidence in patients with aRCC. We also ask whether the benefit is additive or synergistic, and, thus, whether concomitant administration is preferred over sequential monotherapy. Further research is needed to understand how combinations of anti-angiogenic agents with CPIs compare with CPI monotherapy or combination therapy (e.g., nivolumab and ipilimumab), and whether the long-term benefit observed in a subset of patients treated with CPI combinations will also be realised in patients treated with an anti-angiogenic therapy and a CPI. Additional research is also needed to establish whether other elements of the tumour microenvironment also need to be targeted to optimise treatment efficacy, and to identify biomarkers of response to inform personalised treatment using combination therapies.

Avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC alone for advanced urothelial carcinoma: JAVELIN Bladder 100 Japanese subgroup analysis

Background

The phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial showed significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) with avelumab as first-line (1L) maintenance therapy + best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) that had not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy. Efficacy and safety were assessed in patients enrolled in Japan.

Methods

Patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that had not progressed with 4–6 cycles of 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy were randomized to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) + BSC or BSC alone. The primary endpoint was OS, and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety.

Results

In Japanese patients (n = 73) randomized to avelumab + BSC (n = 36) or BSC alone (n = 37), median OS was 24.7 months (95% CI, 18.2-not estimable) vs 18.7 months (95% CI, 12.8–33.0), respectively (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.41–1.58]), and median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI, 1.9–9.4) vs 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.9–3.8), respectively (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.36–1.11]). In the avelumab + BSC and BSC-alone arms, grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 50.0% vs 8.1%, including grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 13.9% vs 0%, respectively. Efficacy and safety results in Japanese patients were generally consistent with findings in the overall trial population.

Conclusion

Avelumab 1L maintenance treatment showed a favorable benefit-risk balance in Japanese patients, supporting avelumab 1L maintenance as a new standard of care in Japanese patients with advanced UC that has not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02603432.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10147-021-02067-8.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: outcomes of Japanese patients enrolled in the randomized, phase III, open-label KEYNOTE-426 study

BACKGROUND

In the phase III open-label KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study, first-line pembrolizumab and axitinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). KEYNOTE-426 evaluated patients enrolled from 25 sites in Japan.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in Japan were included in this post hoc subgroup analysis. Adults with clear cell mRCC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily or oral sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Objective response rate (ORR) and safety were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

The Japanese subgroup comprised 94 patients (pembrolizumab-axitinib, n = 44; sunitinib, n = 50; 11% of the intent-to-treat population). Median time from randomization to data cutoff (January 6, 2020) was 29.5 months (range 24.6-37.3). Consistent with the intent-to-treat population, the OS, PFS, and ORR suggested improvement with pembrolizumab-axitinib versus sunitinib in the Japanese subgroup. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 70% of patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib versus 78% receiving sunitinib; 11 (25%) patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib and 13 (27%) patients receiving sunitinib discontinued the study medication due to AEs. TRAEs led to the discontinuation of pembrolizumab, axitinib, pembrolizumab-axitinib, or sunitinib in 32%, 34%, 14%, and 20%, respectively. No deaths from TRAEs occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy outcomes for the Japanese subgroup were consistent with those of the global population. Safety in Japanese patients was consistent with the results from the global population.

Various Uses of PD1/PD-L1 Inhibitor in Oncology: Opportunities and Challenges

The occurrence and development of cancer are closely related to the immune escape of tumor cells and immune tolerance. Unlike previous surgical, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted therapy, tumor immunotherapy is a therapeutic strategy that uses various means to stimulate and enhance the immune function of the body, and ultimately achieves the goal of controlling tumor cells.With the in-depth understanding of tumor immune escape mechanism and tumor microenvironment, and the in-depth study of tumor immunotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors represented by Programmed Death 1/Programmed cell Death-Ligand 1(PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors are becoming increasingly significant in cancer medication treatment. employ a variety of ways to avoid detection by the immune system, a single strategy is not more effective in overcoming tumor immune evasion and metastasis. Combining different immune agents or other drugs can effectively address situations where immunotherapy is not efficacious, thereby increasing the chances of success and alternative access to alternative immunotherapy. Immune combination therapies for cancer have become a hot topic in cancer treatment today. In this paper, several combination therapeutic modalities of PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors are systematically reviewed. Finally, an analysis and outlook are provided in the context of the recent advances in combination therapy with PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors and the pressing issues in this field.

Prognostic Impact of Trial-Eligibility Criteria in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of trial-eligibility criteria on outcome in real-world metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

mRCC patients treated with TKIs as first-line systemic therapy were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were determined as trial-ineligible when they met at least 1 following trial-ineligible criteria; Karnofsky performance status score <70, hemoglobin <9.0 g/dL, creatinine >2.4 mg/dL (male) or >2.0 mg/dL (female), calcium >12.0 mg/dL, platelet <100,000 /μL, neutrophil <1,500 /μL, nonclear-cell histology, and brain metastasis.

RESULTS

Of 238 patients, 101 patients (42%) were determined as trial-ineligible. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after the TKI initiation were significantly shorter in the trial-ineligible patients than in the trial-eligible patients (median PFS: 5.53 vs. 15.8 months, p < 0.0001; OS: 13.8 vs. 43.4 months, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate was also significantly lower in the trial-ineligible patients (15% vs. 37%, p = 0.0003). Multivariate analysis further showed that the trial-eligibility was an independent factor for PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.46, p < 0.0001) and OS (HR: 2.39, p < 0.0001). In addition, the number of trial-ineligible factors were negatively correlated with PFS and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-word, the substantial number of mRCC patients did not meet the trial-eligibility criteria, and their outcome was worse than that in the trial-eligible patients. Further studies focusing on the outcome in real-world trial-ineligible patients in the immune checkpoint inhibitor era are warranted.

Angiogenesis and immune checkpoint dual blockade in combination with radiotherapy for treatment of solid cancers: opportunities and challenges

Several immune checkpoint blockades (ICBs) capable of overcoming the immunosuppressive roles of the tumor immune microenvironment have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as front-line treatments of various tumor types. However, due to the considerable heterogeneity of solid tumor cells, inhibiting one target will only influence a portion of the tumor cells. One way to enhance the tumor-killing efficiency is to develop a multiagent therapeutic strategy targeting different aspects of tumor biology and the microenvironment to provide the maximal clinical benefit for patients with late-stage disease. One such strategy is the administration of anti-PD1, an ICB, in combination with the humanized monoclonal antibody bevacizumab, an anti-angiogenic therapy, to patients with recurrent/metastatic malignancies, including hepatocellular carcinoma, metastatic renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and uterine cancer. Radiotherapy (RT), a critical component of solid cancer management, has the capacity to prime the immune system for an adaptive antitumor response. Here, we present an overview of the most recent published data in preclinical and clinical studies elucidating that RT could further potentiate the antitumor effects of immune checkpoint and angiogenesis dual blockade. In addition, we explore opportunities of triple combinational treatment, as well as discuss the challenges of validating biomarkers and the management of associated toxicity.

Prognostic impact of immune-related adverse events in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab

OBJECTIVES

Evidence regarding the prognostic impact of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) remains limited in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a first-line systemic therapy. Thus, we investigated the association between irAE development and oncological outcomes during nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 46 patients with mRCC who were treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab at our hospital and its affiliated institutions. The associations between irAE development and progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rates (ORRs) were assessed after treatment initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 60 irAEs occurred in 33 patients (72%), with 24 grade ≥ 3 irAEs developed in 20 patients (43%). PFS was significantly longer in patients with irAEs than that in patients without irAEs (P < 0.0001); however, OS was not different (P = 0.571). Multivariable analysis further revealed that the development of irAEs was an independent predictor of a longer PFS (hazard ratio: 0.18, P = 0.0005). A landmark analysis for the initial four cycles of nivolumab plus ipilimumab administration also showed that PFS was significantly longer in patients with irAEs than that in patients without irAEs (P = 0.0386). The ORRs were also higher in patients with irAEs (P = 0.0064). Furthermore, in 22 patients (48%) who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment, the 6-month PFS rate was 87%.

CONCLUSION

This multi-institutional study showed that irAE development was significantly associated with PFS but not with OS in patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a first-line therapy. The development of irAEs may be used as a surrogate prognostic marker for PFS in this treatment regimen.

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.

Avelumab in Combination with Axitinib as First-Line Treatment in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results from the Phase 1b VEGF Liver 100 Trial

INTRODUCTION

Combining an immune checkpoint inhibitor with a targeted antiangiogenic agent may leverage complementary mechanisms of action for the treatment of advanced/metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). Avelumab is a human anti-PD-L1 IgG1 antibody with clinical activity in various tumor types; axitinib is a selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3. We report the final analysis from VEGF Liver 100 (NCT03289533), a phase 1b study evaluating safety and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib in treatment-naive patients with aHCC.

METHODS

Eligible patients had confirmed aHCC, no prior systemic therapy, ≥1 measurable lesion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, and Child-Pugh class A disease. Patients received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Endpoints included safety and investigator-assessed objective response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 and modified RECIST (mRECIST) for HCC.

RESULTS

Twenty-two Japanese patients were enrolled and treated with avelumab plus axitinib. The minimum follow-up was 18 months as of October 25, 2019 (data cutoff). Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 16 patients (72.7%); the most common (≥3 patients) were hypertension (n = 11 [50.0%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (n = 5 [22.7%]), and decreased appetite (n = 3 [13.6%]). No grade 4 TRAEs or treatment-related deaths occurred. Ten patients (45.5%) had an immune-related AE (irAE) of any grade; 3 patients (13.6%) had an infusion-related reaction (IRR) of any grade, and no grade ≥3 irAE and IRR were observed. The objective response rate was 13.6% (95% CI: 2.9-34.9%) per RECIST 1.1 and 31.8% (95% CI: 13.9-54.9%) per mRECIST for HCC.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with avelumab plus axitinib was associated with a manageable toxicity profile and showed antitumor activity in patients with aHCC.

Testosterone for Managing Treatment-related Fatigue in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Phase 2 Randomized Study FARETES

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is one of the most common adverse events of systemic therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The aim of multicenter randomized phase 2 study was to determine the efficacy and safety of testosterone in patients with fatigue developed during targeted therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Male patients with metastatic clear-cell RCC, normal prostate-specific antigen level, low testosterone level, and no evidence of hypothyroidism receiving first-line sunitinib or pazopanib with fatigue were randomly assigned (1:1) to either testosterone undecanoate (1000 mg) and targeted therapy or targeted therapy alone. The primary endpoint was the mean change of fatigue from baseline to 28 days according to the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale. Secondary endpoints were safety, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index 19, testosterone serum concentrations, red blood cell count, and hemoglobin level.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were assigned to receive testosterone and targeted therapy (N=30) or targeted therapy alone (N=30). As of the data cutoff on December 30, 2019, median follow-up was 18.2 months. The study achieved its primary endpoint based on the significant differences at day 28 favoring testosterone over targeted therapy alone regarding the decreased level of fatigue (difference between groups, 22.5 points; 95% confidence interval, 18.4-26.6; P=0.012). Significant changes in scores demonstrating the enhanced quality of life with testosterone compared with targeted therapy were also observed for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index 19 disease-related symptoms (P=0.01). There were nonsignificant differences in red blood cell count and hemoglobin level between the 2 groups (all P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Male patients with metastatic RCC and hypogonadism receiving testosterone had less fatigue and better symptom control during targeted therapy.

PD-L1 induces macrophage polarization toward the M2 phenotype via Erk/Akt/mTOR

PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) is the ligand of PD-1 (programmed cell death protein 1) and regulates inhibitory immune responses. It is well known that PD-L1 suppresses T cell function via binding to PD-1. However, little is known about the role of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis in macrophage polarization. According to previous studies, the function of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis in macrophage polarization is controversial, and the underlying mechanism has not been fully elucidated. Thus, we treated THP-1-derived macrophages with human PD-L1 Fc to determine the role of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis in macrophage polarization. To further explore the mechanism, we performed RNA sequencing and used specific inhibitors to identify the implicated signalling pathways. In this study, we found that PD-L1 induces the upregulation of CD206 expression, which is inhibited by nivolumab, LY294002, U0126, and rapamycin. Evaluation of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and bioinformatics analysis indicated that PD-L1 also induces the upregulation of the expression of genes that maintain mitochondrial function and mediate metabolic switching. In addition, we did not detect PD-L1-induced CD86 alterations, indicating that PD-L1 treatment has no significant influence on M1 polarization. Taken together, these results suggest that PD-L1 binds to PD-1 and promotes M2 polarization accompanied by mitochondrial function enhancement and metabolic reprogramming via Erk/Akt/mTOR. This study elucidates the role of PD-L1 in macrophage polarization and verifies the underlying mechanisms for the first time. Considering that aberrantly upregulated PD-L1 expression contributes to a wide variety of diseases, targeting PD-L1-mediated macrophage polarization is a prospective therapeutic strategy for both neoplastic and nonneoplastic diseases.

Ocular side effects of checkpoint inhibitors

The incidence and impact of ocular side effects in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors are not clearly defined. We reviewed prospective phase III clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors applied in lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and melanoma. Case reports of the occurrence of ocular toxicities in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors were also included. Of the 35 articles corresponding to phase III clinical trials with checkpoint inhibitors, ocular toxicity was described in four. Forty-six clinical cases of ocular toxicity after therapy with checkpoint inhibitors have been reported. The most frequently described ocular toxicities are uveitis, inflammatory orbital disease, and alterations of the ocular surface. Ocular toxicity is underestimated in checkpoint inhibitors clinical trials. Early ophthalmic examination and treatment with corticosteroids may improve the visual prognosis in these patients.

First-line axitinib therapy is less effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma with spindle histology

Axitinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, will be used in combination first-line therapies against metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but its effects as a first-line monotherapy are unclear. Thus, we aimed to elucidate pretreatment clinical factors that predict the prognosis of patients with mRCC receiving first-line axitinib therapy. We enrolled 63 patients with mRCC treated with axitinib as first-line therapy between Nov. 2003 and Jul. 2018. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Wald χ² statistic in Cox proportional hazards regression. Median patient age was 67 (range: 25-85) years. Seven (11.1%) patients were classified as being at favorable risk, 33 (52.4%) at intermediate risk, and 23 (36.5%) at poor risk according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk classification system. Median follow-up duration after axitinib initiation was 14 (range: 1-72) months. Median PFS and OS were 18 months and 65 months, respectively. Cox regression analyses of clinical predictors revealed that high C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were significantly correlated with shorter PFS [hazard ratio (HR), 1.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-4.0)], whereas spindle cells and poor IMDC risk scores were related to worse OS (HR, 2.87 and 2.88, respectively; 95% CI 1.4-11.0 and 1.1-8.5, respectively). Thus, patients with mRCC and spindle histology or poor IMDC risk scores had worse OS, and those with high CRP levels had shorter PFS in first-line axitinib treatment. Other therapies might be more suitable for initial management of such patients.

Anti-angiogenic Agents in Combination With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Promising Strategy for Cancer Treatment

Advances in cancer immunity have promoted a major breakthrough in the field of cancer therapy. This is mainly associated with the successful development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for multiple types of human tumors. Blockade with different ICIs, including programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, may activate the immune system of the host against malignant cells. However, only a subgroup of patients with cancer would benefit from immune checkpoint blockade. Some patients experience primary resistance to initial immunotherapy, and a majority eventually develop acquired resistance to ICIs. However, the mechanisms involved in the development of drug resistance to immune checkpoint blockade remain unclear. Recent studies supported that combination of ICIs and anti-angiogenic agents could be a promising therapeutic strategy for overcoming the low efficacy of ICIs. Moreover, through their direct anti-cancer effect by inhibiting tumor growth and metastasis, anti-angiogenic drugs reprogram the tumor milieu from an immunosuppressive to an immune permissive microenvironment. Activated immunity by immune checkpoint blockade also facilitates anti-angiogenesis by downregulating the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and alleviating hypoxia condition. Many clinical trials showed an improved anti-cancer efficacy and prolonged survival following the addition of anti-angiogenic agents to ICIs. This review summarizes the current understanding and clinical development of combination therapy with immune checkpoint blockade and anti-angiogenic strategy.

Avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma: Japanese subgroup analysis from JAVELIN Renal 101

The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial of avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and higher objective response rate (ORR) with the combination vs sunitinib. Japanese patients enrolled in the study (N = 67) were randomized to receive avelumab + axitinib (N = 33) or sunitinib (N = 34); 67% vs 59% had PD-L1+ tumors (≥1% of immune cells) and 6%/64%/27% vs 6%/82%/12% had International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable/intermediate/poor risk status. In patients who received avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib, median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was not estimable (8.1 months, not estimable) vs 11.2 months (1.6 months, not estimable) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.152, 1.563) in patients with PD-L1+ tumors and 16.6 months (8.1 months, not estimable) vs 11.2 months (4.2 months, not estimable) (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.296, 1.464) in patients irrespective of PD-L1 expression. Median overall survival (OS) has not been reached in either arm in patients with PD-L1+ tumors and irrespective of PD-L1 expression. ORR (95% CI) was 60.6% (42.1%, 77.1%) vs 17.6% (6.8%, 34.5%) in patients irrespective of PD-L1 expression. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (all grade; grade ≥3) in each arm were hand-foot syndrome (64%; 9% vs 71%; 9%), hypertension (55%; 30% vs 44%; 18%), hypothyroidism (55%; 0% vs 24%; 0%), dysgeusia (21%; 0% vs 56%; 0%) and platelet count decreased (3%; 0% vs 65%; 32%). Avelumab + axitinib was efficacious and tolerable in treatment-naive Japanese patients with advanced RCC, which is consistent with results in the overall population.