Evolving landscape of first-line combination therapy in advanced renal cancer: a systematic review

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.

Tumor microenvironment and clinical efficacy of first line immunotherapy-based combinations in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

The impact of tumor microenvironment (TME) in influencing clinical response to first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatment in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is unclear. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) could identify biomarkers related to immune checkpoints and immune cell population. This study retrospectively characterized TME from 28 RCC patients who received first line ICI-based therapy through IHC assessment of selected markers and explored preliminary evidence about their possible correlation with treatment efficacy. We found a significantly higher count of CD80+, CD163+ cells and their ratio in RCC with clear cell component compared to those without clear cell features; additionally, patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis were associated with higher expression of CD163+ cells, while higher count of CD4+ cells and CD4+/CD8+ ratio were found in RCC with sarcomatoid features. Patients achieving partial or complete response were associated with lower expression of CD163+ cells (median 28 vs 47; p = 0.049). Furthermore, lower expression of CD163+ was associated with better PFS (median PFS 20.0 vs 4.7 months; HR 0.22 p = 0.011) and OS (median OS NR vs 14.4 months; HR 0.28 p = 0.036). A longer OS was reported in PD-L1 CPS negative patients (median OS NR vs 11.8 months; HR 0.20 p = 0.024). High infiltration of CD163+ macrophages, who typically present "anti-inflammatory" M2-like phenotype, could identify a subgroup of patients with poor survival after receiving first-line ICI.

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up from the phase III randomised CheckMate 9ER trial

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO + CABO) was approved for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) based on superiority versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial (18.1 months median survival follow-up per database lock date); efficacy benefit was maintained with an extended 32.9 months of median survival follow-up. We report updated efficacy and safety after 44.0 months of median survival follow-up in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and additional subgroup analyses, including outcomes by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk score.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with treatment-naïve aRCC received NIVO 240 mg every 2 weeks plus CABO 40 mg once daily or SUN 50 mg for 4 weeks (6-week cycles), until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity (maximum NIVO treatment, 2 years). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) per BICR, and safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Overall, 323 patients were randomised to NIVO + CABO and 328 to SUN. Median PFS was improved with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [16.6 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.71]; median OS favoured NIVO + CABO versus SUN (49.5 versus 35.5 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.87). ORR (95% CI) was higher with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [56% (50% to 62%) versus 28% (23% to 33%)]; 13% versus 5% of patients achieved complete response, and median duration of response was 22.1 months versus 16.1 months, respectively. PFS and OS favoured NIVO + CABO over SUN across intermediate, poor and intermediate/poor IMDC risk subgroups; higher ORR and complete response rates were seen with NIVO + CABO versus SUN regardless of IMDC risk subgroup. Any-grade (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% (67%) versus 93% (55%) of patients treated with NIVO + CABO versus SUN.

CONCLUSIONS

After extended follow-up, NIVO + CABO maintained survival and response benefits; safety remained consistent with previous follow-ups. These results continue to support NIVO + CABO as a first-line treatment for aRCC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177.

Toripalimab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: RENOTORCH, a randomized, open-label, phase III study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors are standard treatments for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This phase III RENOTORCH study compared the efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for the first-line treatment of patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk unresectable or metastatic RCC were randomized in a ratio of 1 : 1 to receive toripalimab (240 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily) or sunitinib [50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle) or 2 weeks (3-week cycle)]. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). The secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 421 patients were randomized to receive toripalimab plus axitinib (n = 210) or sunitinib (n = 211). With a median follow-up of 14.6 months, toripalimab plus axitinib significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 35% compared with sunitinib as assessed by an IRC [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.86; P = 0.0028]. The median PFS was 18.0 months in the toripalimab-axitinib group, whereas it was 9.8 months in the sunitinib group. The IRC-assessed ORR was significantly higher in the toripalimab-axitinib group compared with the sunitinib group (56.7% versus 30.8%; P < 0.0001). An OS trend favoring toripalimab plus axitinib was also observed (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.92). Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 61.5% of patients in the toripalimab-axitinib group and 58.6% of patients in the sunitinib group.

CONCLUSION

In patients with previously untreated intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC, toripalimab plus axitinib provided significantly longer PFS and higher ORR than sunitinib and had a manageable safety profile TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04394975.

Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors vs. Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors/Everolimus in Adjuvant Renal Cell Carcinoma: Indirect Comparison of Disease-Free Survival

BACKGROUND

The proven efficacy of mTOR inhibitors (mTORIs), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) suggests that these agents should be investigated as adjuvant therapy with the aim of eliminating undetectable microscopic residual disease after curative resection. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of these treatments using an innovative method of reconstructing individual patient data.

METHODS

Nine phase III trials describing adjuvant RCC treatments were selected. The IPDfromKM method was used to reconstruct individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. The combination treatments were compared with the control arm (placebo) for disease-free survival (DFS). Multi-treatment KM curves were used to summarize the results. Standard statistical tests were performed. These included hazard ratio and likelihood ratio tests for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the study showed that two ICIs (nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab) and one TKI (sunitinib) were superior to the placebo, whereas both TKIs and mTORIs were inferior. As we assessed DFS as the primary endpoint for the adjuvant comparison, the overall survival benefit remains unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel approach to investigating survival has allowed us to conduct all indirect head-to-head comparisons between these agents in a context where no "real" comparative trials have been conducted.

Development and validation of a combined hypoxia- and metabolism-related prognostic signature to predict clinical prognosis and immunotherapy responses in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Background

Hypoxia and metabolism are closely correlated with the progression of cancer. We aimed to construct a combined hypoxia- and metabolism-related genes (HMRGs) prognostic signature to predict survival and immunotherapy responses in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

Methods

The RNA-seq profiles and clinical data of ccRCC were acquired from the TCGA and the ArrayExpress (E-MTAB-1980) databases. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were applied to establish a prognostic signature. The E-MTAB-1980 cohort was selected for validation. The effectiveness and reliability of the signature were further evaluated by Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Further analyses, including functional enrichment, ssGSEA algorithm, CIBERSORT algorithm, and expression of immune checkpoints, were explored to investigate immune status and immunotherapy responses.

Results

We constructed a prognostic eight-gene signature with IRF6, TEK, PLCB2, ABCB1, TGFA, COL4A5, PLOD2, and TUBB6. Patients were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups based on the medium-risk score. The K-M analysis revealed that patients in the high-risk group had an apparently poor prognosis compared to those in the low-risk group in the TCGA (p < 0.001) and E-MTAB-1980 (p < 0.005). The area under ROC curve (AUC) of the prognostic signature was 0.8 at 1 year, 0.77 at 3 years, and 0.78 at 5 years in the TCGA, respectively, and was 0.82 at 1 year, 0.74 at 3 years, and 0.75 at 5 years in the E-MTAB-1980, respectively. Independent prognostic analysis confirmed the risk score as a separate prognostic factor in ccRCC patients (p < 0.001). The results of ssGSEA showed not only a high degree of immune cell infiltration but also high scores of immune-related functions in the high-risk group. The CIBERSORT analysis further confirmed that the abundance of immune cells was apparently different between the two risk groups. The risk score was significantly correlated with the expression of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA4), lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG3), and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1).

Conclusion

The HMRGs signature could be used to predict clinical prognosis, evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapy, and guide personalized immunotherapy in ccRCC patients.

Molecular Mechanisms of Tumor Progression and New Therapeutic Strategies for Urological Cancers

Urological cancer encompasses a diverse range of tumors, including bladder, prostate, renal, upper urinary tract, and germ cell tumors [...].

Mitochondrially targeted tamoxifen as anticancer therapy: case series of patients with renal cell carcinoma treated in a phase I/Ib clinical trial

Mitochondrially targeted anticancer drugs (mitocans) that disrupt the energy-producing systems of cancer are emerging as new potential therapeutics. Mitochondrially targeted tamoxifen (MitoTam), an inhibitor of mitochondrial respiration respiratory complex I, is a first-in-class mitocan that was tested in the phase I/Ib MitoTam-01 trial of patients with metastatic cancer. MitoTam exhibited a manageable safety profile and efficacy; among 37% (14/38) of responders, the efficacy was greatest in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clinical benefit rate of 83% (5/6) of patients. This can be explained by the preferential accumulation of MitoTam in the kidney tissue in preclinical studies. Here we report the mechanism of action and safety profile of MitoTam in a case series of RCC patients. All six patients were males with a median age of 69 years, who had previously received at least three lines of palliative systemic therapy and suffered progressive disease before starting MitoTam. We recorded stable disease in four, partial response in one, and progressive disease (PD) in one patient. The histological subtype matched clear cell RCC (ccRCC) in the five responders and claro-cellular carcinoma with sarcomatoid features in the non-responder. The number of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) was evaluated longitudinally to monitor disease dynamics. Beside the decreased number of CTCs after MitoTam administration, we observed a significant decrease of the mitochondrial network mass in enriched CTCs. Two patients had long-term clinical responses to MitoTam, of 50 and 36 weeks. Both patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events, not PD. Two patients who completed the trial in November 2019 and May 2020 are still alive without subsequent anticancer therapy. The toxicity of MitoTam increased with the dosage but was manageable. The efficacy of MitoTam in pretreated ccRCC patients is linked to the novel mechanism of action of this first-in-class mitochondrially targeted drug.

ExPert ConsEnsus on the management of Advanced clear-cell RenaL celL carcinoma: INDIAn Perspective (PEARL-INDIA)

In advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (aRCC), systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment, with no or little role for surgery in these patients. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune-oncological (IOs) therapies, either alone or in combination, are recommended in these patients depending on patient and tumour factors. The sequencing of therapies is critical in RCC because the choice of subsequent line therapy is heavily dependent on the response and duration of the previous treatment. There are additional barriers to RCC treatment in India. Immunotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment in ccRCC, but it is prohibitively expensive and not always reimbursed, effectively putting it out of reach for the vast majority of eligible patients in India. Furthermore, in advanced RCC (particularly the clear cell variety), Indian oncologists consider the disease burden of the patients, which is particularly dependent on the quantum of the disease load, clinical symptoms, and performance status of the patient, before deciding on treatment. There are no India-specific guidelines for clear cell RCC (ccRCC) treatment or the positioning and sequencing of molecules in the management of advanced ccRCC that take these country-specific issues into account. The current consensus article provides expert recommendations and treatment algorithms based on existing clinical evidence, which will be useful to specialists managing advanced ccRCC.

Comparison of patients with renal cell carcinoma in adjuvant therapy trials to a real-world population

PURPOSE

To compare characteristics and outcomes of patients included versus those not in adjuvant therapy trials post complete resection of renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

METHODS

Adult patients following complete resection for clear cell RCC between January 1, 2011, and March 31, 2021, were included. Patients had intermediate high, high risk nonmetastatic disease (modified UCLA Integrated Staging System) or fully resected metastatic (M1) disease as per the inclusion criteria of adjuvant studies. Demographic, clinical, and outcomes between trial and nontrial patients were compared.

RESULTS

Of 1,459 eligible patients, 63 (4.3%) participated in an adjuvant trial. Disease characteristics were similar between groups. Trial patients were younger (mean age 58.1 vs. 63.6 years; P < 0.0001) and had lower Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (mean 4.2 vs. 4.9; P = 0.009). Unadjusted disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years for trial patients was 48.6% and 39.2% for nontrial patients (HR 0.71, 0.48-1.05, P = 0.08). Median DFS was higher for trial patients in comparison to nontrial patients (4.4 years, IQR 1.7- not reached; vs. 3.0 years, IQR 0.8-8.6; P = 0.08). Cancer specific survival (CSS) at 5 years for trial patients was 85.2% in comparison to 78.6% for nontrial patients (HR 0.45, 0.22-0.92, P = 0.03). Unadjusted estimated overall survival (OS) at 5 years was 80.8% for trial patients and 74.8% (HR 0.42, 0.18-0.94; P = 0.04) for nontrial patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in adjuvant trials were younger and healthier with longer CSS and OS in comparison to those not included in adjuvant trials. These findings may have implications when we generalize trial results to real world patients.

Temporary treatment cessation versus continuation of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (STAR): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial

BACKGROUND

Temporary drug treatment cessation might alleviate toxicity without substantially compromising efficacy in patients with cancer. We aimed to determine if a tyrosine kinase inhibitor drug-free interval strategy was non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy for first-line treatment of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

This open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial was done at 60 hospital sites in the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had histologically confirmed clear cell renal cell carcinoma, inoperable loco-regional or metastatic disease, no previous systemic therapy for advanced disease, uni-dimensionally assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours-defined measurable disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) at baseline to a conventional continuation strategy or drug-free interval strategy using a central computer-generated minimisation programme incorporating a random element. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic group risk factor, sex, trial site, age, disease status, tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and previous nephrectomy. All patients received standard dosing schedules of oral sunitinib (50 mg per day) or oral pazopanib (800 mg per day) for 24 weeks before moving into their randomly allocated group. Patients allocated to the drug-free interval strategy group then had a treatment break until disease progression, when treatment was re-instated. Patients in the conventional continuation strategy group continued treatment. Patients, treating clinicians, and the study team were aware of treatment allocation. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the overall survival hazard ratio (HR) was 0·812 or higher and if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the marginal difference in mean QALYs was -0·156 or higher. The co-primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which included all randomly assigned patients, and the per-protocol population, which excluded patients in the ITT population with major protocol violations and who did not begin their randomisation allocation as per the protocol. Non-inferiority was to be concluded if it was met for both endpoints in both analysis populations. Safety was assessed in all participants who received a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, 06473203, and EudraCT, 2011-001098-16.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2012, and Sept 12, 2017, 2197 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 920 were randomly assigned to the conventional continuation strategy (n=461) or the drug-free interval strategy (n=459; 668 [73%] male and 251 [27%] female; 885 [96%] White and 23 [3%] non-White). The median follow-up time was 58 months (IQR 46-73 months) in the ITT population and 58 months (46-72) in the per-protocol population. 488 patients continued on the trial after week 24. For overall survival, non-inferiority was demonstrated in the ITT population only (adjusted HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·83 to 1·12] in the ITT population; 0·94 [0·80 to 1·09] in the per-protocol population). Non-inferiority was demonstrated for QALYs in the ITT population (n=919) and per-protocol (n=871) population (marginal effect difference 0·06 [95% CI -0·11 to 0·23] for the ITT population; 0·04 [-0·14 to 0·21] for the per-protocol population). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (124 [26%] of 485 patients in the conventional continuation strategy group vs 127 [29%] of 431 patients in the drug-free interval strategy group); hepatotoxicity (55 [11%] vs 48 [11%]); and fatigue (39 [8%] vs 63 [15%]). 192 (21%) of 920 participants had a serious adverse reaction. 12 treatment-related deaths were reported (three patients in the conventional continuation strategy group; nine patients in the drug-free interval strategy group) due to vascular (n=3), cardiac (n=3), hepatobiliary (n=3), gastrointestinal (n=1), or nervous system (n=1) disorders, and from infections and infestations (n=1).

INTERPRETATION

Overall, non-inferiority between groups could not be concluded. However, there seemed to be no clinically meaningful reduction in life expectancy between the drug-free interval strategy and conventional continuation strategy groups and treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Novel imino-thiazoloquinoxaline derivatives against renal cell carcinoma: less radiation-damaging approach

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most fatal tumor in the urinary system. Resistance development and unmet effective responses, request new anticancer agents with better therapeutic index. Ten new imino-thiazolo-quinoxaline derivatives (5a-j) were synthesized and preliminary evaluated for downregulation of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) activity taking sorafenib as a reference drug. Compounds 5d & 5h showed potent inhibition to VEGFR-2 activity at IC50 89.35 nM & 60.64 nM, respectively, then they both were further evaluated in-vitro against urinary bladder cancer cell line T-24 taking sorafenib as a reference drug. Compound 5h displayed nearly anticancer activity to sorafenib against T-24 cell line in all concentrations tested except at concentration 10 µM where it highly suppressed cell viability to 6.71 % compared to 15.15% of sorafenib. Compound 5h was then evaluated for its ameliorative efect against radiation induced renal tissue injury. Assessment of pro-angiogenic (VEGFR-2), pro-fibrotic (transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-β1)) and apoptotic (caspase-3) markers, as well as histopathological examinations were performed on kidney of irradiated mice. Results showed ability of compound 5h to downregulate VEGFR-2 activity and its cytotoxic effect against RCC, in addition to mitigation of radiation induced renal tissue injury. Ethyl imino-thiazoloquinoxaline carboxylate derivative 5h showed a potential cytotoxic activity against RCC and could be considered a promosing alleviative candidate when employed post radiotherapy regimen.

Graphical Abstract

The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as adjuvant treatment in renal cell carcinoma (RCC): A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 ICI is approved for the adjuvant treatment of postnephrectomy patients with clear cell RCC in some countries worldwide. However, recent negative data from randomized clinical trials (RCT) with another ICIs makes the benefit of this treatment uncertain. A systematic review and study-level meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the benefit of disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant ICI treatment for patients with localized and/or metastatic resected RCC. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, a systematic search was performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE, Scopus and EMBASE up to September 15, 2022. The statistical analysis was performed by ProMeta 3 software in intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in predetermined subgroups. Four RCT totalizing 3407 patients were included in this analysis. Systemic immunotherapy was pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab in 496, 390, 404, and 405 patients, respectively. In the ITT population there was a nonstatistically significant DFS benefit with adjuvant ICI (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.69-1.04). Regarding the subgroups, there was a DFS benefit for PD-L1 positive (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55-0.94), intermediate-high risk patients (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63-0.94), and patients with sarcomatoid component (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). This meta-analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant DFS benefit in overall population, however considering the heterogeneity between the RCTs the use of adjuvant ICI should be individualized.

Observational study on the evolution of systemic treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma in Southwest Finland between 2010 and 2021

Background

Novel receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been introduced to the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) during the past decade. However, the adoption of novel treatments into clinical practice has been unknown in Finland.

Objectives

Our aim was to evaluate the use of systemic treatments and treatment outcomes of aRCC patients in Southwest Finland during 2010-2021.

Design and Methods

Clinical characteristics, treatments for aRCC, healthcare resource utilization, and overall survival (OS) were retrospectively obtained from electronic medical records. Patients were stratified using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk classification.

Results

In total, 1112 RCC patients were identified, 336 (30%) patients presented with aRCC, and 57% of them (n = 191) had received systemic treatment. Pre-2018, sunitinib (79%) was the most common first-line treatment, and pazopanib (17%), axitinib (17%), and cabozantinib (5%) were frequently used in the second-line. Post-2018, sunitinib (52%), cabozantinib (31%), and the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab (10%) were most commonly used in the first-line, and cabozantinib (23%) in the second-line. Median OS for patients with favorable, intermediate, and poor risk were 61.9, 28.6, and 8.1 months, respectively. A total of 73%, 74%, and 35% of the patients with favorable, intermediate, and poor risk had received second-line systemic treatment. In poor-risk patients, the number of hospital inpatient days was twofold higher compared to intermediate and fourfold higher compared to favorable-risk patients.

Conclusion

New treatment options were readily adopted into routine clinical practice after becoming reimbursed in Finland. OS and the need for hospitalization depended significantly on the IMDC risk category. Upfront combination treatments are warranted for poor-risk patients as the proportion of patients receiving second-line treatment is low.

Registration

Clinical trial identifier: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05363072.

Nonfamilial Bilateral Synchronous Renal Cell Carcinoma with Discordant Histology with Eventual Complete Response to Dual Immunotherapy

Bilateral synchronous renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rare, especially in sporadic rather than familial cases. While immunotherapy has improved prognosis, RCC remains a diagnosis with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly pronounced in patients with sarcomatoid RCC (sRCC). We describe a case of a patient with bilateral, synchronous, nonfamilial RCC, with and without sarcomatoid features and differing genetic markers, who demonstrated a pathologic response after neoadjuvant nivolumab and ipilimumab. The patient then had radical left nephrectomy and partial right nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab and cabozantinib, after which the patient had no evidence of disease. Our patient's illustrative case shows the potential therapeutic value of immunotherapy even in sRCC, the disease's most aggressive clinical subtype.

Exploring genetic and immune underpinnings of the sexual dimorphism in tumor response to immune checkpoints inhibitors: A narrative review

Introduction

In spite of the undisputed relevance of sex as critical biologic variable of the immune landscape, still limited is our understanding of the basic mechanisms implicated in sex-biased immune response thereby conditioning the therapeutic outcome in cancer patients. This hindrance delays the actual attempts to decipher the heterogeneity of cancer and its immune surveillance, further digressing the achievement of predictive biomarkers in the current immunotherapy-driven scenario. Body: The present review concisely reports on genetic, chromosomal, hormonal, and immune features underlying sex-differences in the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In addition to outline the need of robust data on ICI pharmaco-kinetics/dynamics, our survey might provide new insights on sex determinants of ICI efficacy and suggests uncovered pathways that warrant prospective investigations.

Conclusion

According to a sharable view, we propose to widely include sex among the co-variates when assessing the clinical response to ICI in cancer patients.

Adjuvant atezolizumab versus placebo for patients with renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence following resection (IMmotion010): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The standard of care for locoregional renal cell carcinoma is surgery, but many patients experience recurrence. The objective of the current study was to determine if adjuvant atezolizumab (vs placebo) delayed recurrence in patients with an increased risk of recurrence after resection.

METHODS

IMmotion010 is a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial conducted in 215 centres in 28 countries. Eligible patients were patients aged 18 years or older with renal cell carcinoma with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component and increased risk of recurrence. After nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo (both intravenous) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice-web response system. Stratification factors were disease stage (T2 or T3a vs T3b-c or T4 or N+ vs M1 no evidence of disease), geographical region (north America [excluding Mexico] vs rest of the world), and PD-L1 status on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (<1% vs ≥1% expression). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who were randomised, regardless of whether study treatment was received. The safety-evaluable population included all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received any amount of study drug (ie, atezolizumab or placebo), regardless of whether a full or partial dose was received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03024996, and is closed to further accrual.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 3, 2017, and Feb 15, 2019, 778 patients were enrolled; 390 (50%) were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 388 (50%) to the placebo group. At data cutoff (May 3, 2022), the median follow-up duration was 44·7 months (IQR 39·1-51·0). Median investigator-assessed disease-free survival was 57·2 months (95% CI 44·6 to not evaluable) with atezolizumab and 49·5 months (47·4 to not evaluable) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·93, 95% CI 0·75-1·15, p=0·50). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (seven [2%] patients who received atezolizumab vs 15 [4%] patients who received placebo), hyperglycaemia (ten [3%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (two [1%] vs seven [2%]). 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo had a serious adverse event. There were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

Atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy after resection for patients with renal cell carcinoma with increased risk of recurrence showed no evidence of improved clinical outcomes versus placebo. These study results do not support adjuvant atezolizumab for treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, a member of the Roche group.

Determining Front-Line Therapeutic Strategy for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

The therapeutic landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma has rapidly evolved over the years, and we are now in an era of combination therapy strategies employing immune checkpoint blockade and anti-angiogenesis targeted therapy. Since 2018, we have gained regulatory approval for four distinct combination therapies, all with survival benefits, and with guideline recommendation for use in the front-line setting. As such, treatment selection has become increasingly complex with a myriad of treatment choices but little high-level head-to-head data to guide treatment selection. Heterogeneity in tumor biology further complicates treatment selection as tumors vary in behavior and treatment responsiveness. Ongoing development of biomarkers will certainly assist in this setting, and validation of predictive markers represents an unmet need. In their absence, we highlight features of disease and nuances to datasets from landmark prospective clinical trials to help inform treatment selection. There is growing evidence to support deferring upfront systemic therapy in some patients, with opportunities for active surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy. In others, upfront systemic therapy is warranted and necessitates thoughtful consideration of multiple clinicopathologic parameters to inform optimal patient-centered decision making.