Is there a preferred first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma? A network meta-analysis

What factors may affect the effect of ICI-combined therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma? A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The prognostic factors of ICI-including combined therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma were analyzed by systematic review.

METHOD

We searched Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang and other databases for randomized controlled trials and clinical trials of combination therapy including ICIs in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The search time was from the establishment of the database to September 2023. Data were extracted and evaluated with RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

Six studies were included, including 4723 patients. The results showed that ① in terms of progression-free survival, the factors of age < 65 years old, male sex, Canada and Western Europe, nephrectomy, different IMDC class, number of organs with metastases and PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% significantly prolonged PFS in patients with metastatic cancer treated by combination therapy including ICIs; ② in terms of overall survival rate, the factors of age < 65 years old, female sex, nephrectomy, different IMDC class and PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% significantly prolonged the OS of patients with metastatic cancer treated by combination therapy including ICIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, sex, region, nephrectomy, different IMDC class, number of organs with metastases and PD-L1 expression are independent factors influencing the efficacy of combination therapy including ICIs in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Systematic evaluation of baseline indicators of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma to predict clinical benefits can effectively improve the benefit rate of patients.

Adverse events of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab plus cabozantinib: a real-world pharmacovigilance study

BACKGROUND

No head-to-head clinical trials have compared the differences in adverse events (AEs) between nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI) and nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

AIM

We analysed the two largest real-world databases, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the World Health Organization's VigiBase, to elucidate the differences in AEs between NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO.

METHOD

In total, 40,376 and 38,022 records were extracted from FAERS and VigiBase, and 193 AEs were analysed. The reporting odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence interval were calculated using a disproportionality analysis (NIVO-CABO/NIVO-IPI).

RESULTS

The reported numbers of immune-related AEs, including myocarditis, colitis, and hepatitis, were significantly higher with NIVO-IPI (ROR = 0.18 for FAERS and 0.13 for VigiBase). Contrarily, the reported numbers of other AEs, including gastrointestinal disorders (ROR = 2.68 and 2.92) and skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (ROR = 2.94 and 3.55), considered to be potentiated by the combination of NIVO and CABO, were higher with NIVO-CABO.

CONCLUSION

Our findings contribute to the selection and clinical management of NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO, which minimizes the risk of AEs for individual patients with mRCC by considering distinctive differences in the AE profiles.

Metastatic Kidney Cancer: Does the Location of the Metastases Matter? Moving towards Personalized Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

The management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been revolutionized over the past two decades with several practice-changing treatments. Treatment for RCC often requires a multimodal approach: Local treatment, such as surgery or ablation, is typically recommended for patients with localized tumors, while stage IV cancers often require both local and systemic therapy. The treatment of advanced RCC heavily relies on immunotherapy and targeted therapy, which are highly contingent upon histological subtypes. Despite years of research on biomarkers for RCC, the standard of care is to choose systemic therapy based on the risk profile according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre models. However, many questions still need to be answered. Should we consider metastatic sites when deciding on treatment options for metastatic RCC? How do we choose between dual immunotherapy and combinations of immunotherapy and tyrosine kinase inhibitors? This review article aims to answer these unresolved questions surrounding the concept of personalized medicine.

Hemoglobin and neutrophil levels stratified according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk predict the effectiveness of ipilimumab plus nivolumab in patients with advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To identify biomarkers associated with the effectiveness of ipilimumab plus nivolumab against advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 75 patients treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab at seven hospitals between August 2018 and April 2021. Prognostic biomarkers were assessed prior to initiating treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were examined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of disease progression. The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk factors most important for predicting disease progression were determined using classification and regression tree analysis.

RESULTS

Median overall survival and progression-free survival were longer in the intermediate IMDC risk group than in the poor IMDC risk group (overall: not reached vs. 18.3 months; progression-free: not reached vs. 13.5 months). The multivariate analysis identified poor IMDC risk as a risk factor for disease progression (hazard ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-6.51). Based on the results of the classification and regression tree analysis, the cohort was divided into non-anemia, anemia + neutro-Low, and anemia + neutro-High groups. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were longer in the non-anemia and anemia + neutro-Low groups than in the anemia + neutro-High group (overall: not reached vs. 29.3 months vs. 4.3 months: progression-free: not reached vs. 29.0 months vs. 3.9 months).

CONCLUSION

Hemoglobin and neutrophil levels may represent crucial biomarkers for predicting the effectiveness of ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Tyrosine kinase and immune checkpoints inhibitors in favorable risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Trick or treat?

Over the past decade, the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has undergone rapid evolution, culminating in a significant improvement in prognosis with frontline immunotherapy. RCC is a highly immunogenic and pro-angiogenic cancer, and mounting evidence has established the immunosuppressive effects of pro-angiogenic factors on the host's immune system. Anti-angiogenic agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and bevacizumab, which obstruct the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway, have demonstrated the potential to enhance antitumor activity and improve the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Consequently, various combinations of TKIs and ICIs have been assessed and are currently considered the preferred regimens for all metastatic RCC patients, regardless of their prognostic risk score. Nevertheless, some inquiries have arisen within the medical community, as metastatic RCC patients with favorable risk scores who received ICIs and TKIs in combination showed no statistically significant advantage in overall survival compared to those treated with sunitinib alone. Considering these concerns, this review aims to elucidate the rationale behind TKI and ICI combination therapies, provide a summary of current first-line metastatic RCC combinations approved for use, with a focus on favorable-risk patients, and outline present challenges and future perspectives in this context.

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.

External Validation of a Novel Risk Model in Patients With Favorable Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma Defined by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC): Results From the Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) Database

BACKGROUND

A novel prognostic model was recommended for patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC). In this study, we aimed to externally validate a novel risk model for the IMDC-favorable risk group in patients with mRCC.

METHODS

The Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) is a multicenter registry that includes 13 cancer centers in Turkey. As described by Schmidt et al., 3 parameters (ie, time from diagnosis to systemic therapy <3 vs. ≥3 years, Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] 80 vs. >80, and the presence of brain, liver, or bone metastasis) were used to divide the IMDC favorable risk group into 2 new categories: very favorable and favorable risk groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Time to treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR) in the very favorable and favorable risk groups were the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

A total of 545 patients with mRCC from all IMDC risk groups and 112 patients from the favorable risk group were included in this study. According to the novel classification model, 44 (39.3%) and 68 (60.7%) patients with former favorable risk were categorized into very favorable and favorable risk groups, respectively. The median OS (55.8 months vs. 34.2 months, P = .025) and TTF (25.5 months vs. 15.5 months, P = .010) were longer in the very favorable risk group than in the favorable risk group. The concordance index of the new IMDC model in all patients was 0.65 for OS. Despite the higher ORR in the very favorable risk group than in the favorable risk group, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (52.4% vs. 44.7, P = .573).

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study to externally validate the novel IMDC risk model presented in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium 2021.

Validation of the Meet-URO score in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving first-line nivolumab and ipilimumab in the Italian Expanded Access Program

BACKGROUND

The Meet-URO score allowed a more accurate prognostication than the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) for patients with pre-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) by adding the pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and presence of bone metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A post hoc analysis was carried out to validate the Meet-URO score on the overall survival (OS) of patients with IMDC intermediate-poor-risk mRCC treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab within the prospective Italian Expanded Access Programme (EAP). We additionally considered progression-free survival (PFS) and disease response rates. Harrell's c-index was calculated to compare the accuracy of survival prediction.

RESULTS

Overall the EAP included 306 patients, with a median follow-up of 12.2 months, median OS was not reached, 1-year OS was 66.8% and median PFS was 7.9 months. By univariable analysis, both the IMDC score and the two additional variables of the Meet-URO score were associated with either OS or PFS (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The four Meet-URO risk groups (G) had 1-year OS of 92%, 72%, 50% and 21% for G2 (29.1% of patients), G3 (28.8%), G4 (33.0%) and G5 (9.1%), respectively. OS was significantly shorter in each consecutive G (P = 0.001 for G3, P < 0.001 for both G4 and G5 compared to G2). Similarly, Meet-URO Gs 2-5 showed decreasing median PFS and response rates. The Meet-URO score showed the highest c-index for both OS (0.73) and PFS (0.67). Limitations include the post hoc nature of this analysis and the lack of a comparative arm to assess predictive value.

CONCLUSION

The Meet-URO score appeared to show better prognostic classification than the IMDC alone in patients with mRCC at IMDC intermediate-poor risk treated with first-line nivolumab and ipilimumab.

Combined response of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma to immunotherapy: a case report

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly improved the therapeutic scenario of many different advanced malignancies and could be an effective treatment strategy in synchronous or metachronous tumors. The authors describe the clinical case of a patient who experienced a long-lasting response of his metastatic renal cell carcinoma and an optimal response of his locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma to immunotherapy. The systemic treatment was chosen based on a literature review of several clinical reports, since there was no prospective study on anti-PD-1 blockade activity in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma when the patient started the treatment. This clinical case supports the growing evidence for immunotherapy as a valid treatment option across different types of advanced tumors.

Compassionate Use Program of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in Intermediate or Poor Risk Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Large Multicenter Italian Study

This is a retrospective analysis on the safety and activity of compassionate Ipilimumab and Nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) administered to patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) with intermediate or poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score as a first-line regimen. IPI was infused at 1 mg/kg in combination with Nivolumab 3 mg/kg every three weeks for four doses, followed by maintenance Nivolumab (240 or 480 mg flat dose every two or four weeks, respectively) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 324 patients started IPI-NIVO at 86 Italian centers. Median age was 62 years, 68.2% IMDC intermediate risk. Primary tumor had been removed in 65.1% of patients. Two hundred and twenty patients (67.9%) completed the four IPI-NIVO doses. Investigator-assessed overall response rate was 37.6% (2.8% complete). Twelve-month survival rate was 66.8%, median progression-free survival was 8.3 months. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 67 patients (26.9%). IMDC intermediate risk, nephrectomy, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, and steroid use for toxicities correlated with improved survival, while age < 70 years did not. IPI-NIVO combination is a feasible and effective regimen for the first-line treatment of intermediate-poor IMDC risk mRCC patients in routine clinical practice.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy for treatment-naïve metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma-A network meta-analysis. Focus on cabozantinib combined with nivolumab

Introduction: The combination of immunotherapy and targeted therapy is currently marking a new era in the treatment of renal cancer. The latest clinical guidelines recommend the use of drug combinations for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cancer. The aim of this review is to compare the efficacy of combined cabozantinib + nivolumab therapy with other immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies blocking the CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T cell antigen 4) in the first-line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Methodology: A systematic literature search was carried out in the PubMed and EMBASE databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on therapies recommended by the latest EAU and ESMO guidelines for treatment-naïve metastatic RCC (i.e., lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, axitinib + pembrolizumab and nivolumab + ipilimumab) were searched. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed for data synthesis. The methodology of included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane RoB two tool. The data were analyzed in the overall population as well as in risk subgroups defined according to the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) i.e., patients with a favorable and intermediate or poor prognoses. The most recent cut-off dates from included studies were analyzed. Results: Four RCTs (CheckMate 9 ER, KEYNOTE-426, CLEAR and CheckMate 214) were included in the review. No studies directly comparing cabozantinib + nivolumab with any of the drug combinations included in this review were available. NMA showed that cabozantinib + nivolumab was superior compared to axitinib + pembrolizumab and nivolumab + ipilimumab in all analyzed comparisons (overall population and IMDC risk subgroups), both in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). The advantage of cabozantinib + nivolumab was statistically significant only for PFS when compared to nivolumab + ipilimumab in the overall population. The results for the comparison of cabozantinib + nivolumab with lenvatinib + pembrolizumab showed numerical superiority of lenvatinib + pembrolizumab combination in terms of overall survival, but none of the results were statistically significant. The advantage of lenvatinib + pembrolizumab over cabozantinib + nivolumab in terms of PFS was statistically significant in the overall and favorable prognosis population. Conclusion: Inclusion of the most recent cut-off data from CheckMate 9 ER did not affect the role of the cabozantinib + nivolumab combination for treatment-naïve metastatic RCC. Cabozantinib + nivolumab is an effective therapeutic option for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cancer that is recommended both in the latest European and American guidelines for all IMDC risk groups.