Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a phase III trial

Immunotherapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma-What More is to Come?

The treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a malignancy that is typically chemoresistant, has drastically evolved with the introduction of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The introduction of ICI-based regimens has significantly improved outcomes for patients with metastatic RCC. Currently, first-line therapy for patients with metastatic RCC involves multiple ICI-based regimens, either dual ICIs (with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA- 4) and anti-programmed cell death- 1 (PD- 1) therapies) or anti-PD- 1 therapy in combination with VEGFR TKIs. Despite improving patient outcomes with ICI-based regimens, durable responses remain uncommon, highlighting the need for innovative treatment strategies. In this review, we highlight the current standard of care ICI-based regimens followed by ongoing clinical trials with novel combinations of existing FDA-approved agents and targets. We also discuss novel immunotherapies currently in clinical trials, which aim to improve antitumor T cell immunity either by improving T cell activation or T cell navigation to the tumor microenvironment. The incorporation of these novel therapies offers the potential to improve RCC patient outcomes, particularly by enhancing the durability of treatment responses.

Efficacy of First-Line Treatments for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Objective Response, Progression-Free Survival, and Overall Survival

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to indirectly compare pembrolizumab + lenvatinib to other treatments of interest for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

METHODS

A systematic literature review searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases for relevant randomized controlled trials of interest up to 30 January 2024, with an updated search conducted on 17 March 2025. A fixed effect Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to determine the relative treatment effects for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

When comparing against other immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), a statistically significant improvement in PFS was demonstrated between pembrolizumab + lenvatinib compared with nivolumab + ipilimumab (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.53; 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.40-0.71), avelumab + axitinib (HR = 0.71; 95% Crl: 0.53-0.94), atezolizumab + bevacizumab (HR = 0.54; 95% CrI: 0.40-0.73), and pembrolizumab + axitinib (HR = 0.69; 95% CrI: 0.51-0.91). Treatment with pembrolizumab + lenvatinib resulted in no statistically significant difference between pembrolizumab + lenvatinib and other combination ICI-based therapies for OS. A statistically significant higher ORR was shown for pembrolizumab + lenvatinib compared with nivolumab + ipilimumab (odd ratio (OR) = 3.29; 95% Crl: 2.21-4.93), pembrolizumab + axitinib (OR = 1.92; 95% CrI: 1.27-2.94), atezolizumab + bevacizumab (OR = 4.05; 95% Crl: 2.71-6.05), bempegaldesleukin + nivolumab (OR = 6.20; 95% CrI: 3.69-10.48), and nivolumab (OR = 5.92; 95% CrI: 2.70-13.24).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall population analysis indicated that pembrolizumab + lenvatinib improves PFS and ORR compared with other approved ICI combination therapies in first-line aRCC. No significant differences in OS were observed between pembrolizumab + lenvatinib and other combination immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies.

Hyperactivated YAP1 is essential for sustainable progression of renal clear cell carcinoma

The most notable progress in renal clear cell carcinoma (ccRCC) in the past decades is the introduction of drugs targeting the VHL-HIF signaling pathway-associated angiogenesis. However, mechanisms underlying the development of VHL mutation-independent ccRCC are unclear. Here we provide evidence that the disrupted Hippo-YAP signaling contributes to the development of ccRCC independent of VHL alteration. We found that YAP1 and its primary target genes are frequently upregulated in ccRCC and the upregulation of these genes is associated with unfavorable patient outcomes. Research results derived from our in vitro and in vivo experimental models demonstrated that, under normoxic conditions, hyperactivated YAP1 drives the expression of FGFs to stimulate the proliferation of tumor and tumor-associated endothelial cells in an autocrine/paracrine manner. When rapidly growing cancer cells create a hypoxic environment, hyperactivated YAP1 in cancer cells induces the production of VEGF, which promotes the angiogenesis of tumor-associated endothelial cells, leading to improved tumor microenvironment and continuous tumor growth. Our study indicates that hyperactivated YAP1 is essential for maintaining ccRCC progression, and targeting the dual role of hyperactivated YAP1 represents a novel strategy to improve renal carcinoma therapy.

The selection of targeted therapies for relapsed or refractory advanced renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Advancements in immunotherapy and angiogenesis-targeted therapies have transformed the upfront treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, long-term prognoses for patients with unresectable and metastatic disease often remain limited, with the majority experiencing progression after exposure to front-line therapy. In most cases of relapsed or refractory (R/R) disease after prior exposure to an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), there is no role for ICI-rechallenge. Therefore, treatment of R/R RCC relies on the appropriate selection of therapies targeting growth pathways dependent on vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF).

AREAS COVERED

This review article summarizes the current landscape of targeted therapies for use in second-line or later-line settings for the treatment of clear cell and non-clear cell RCC. Novel therapeutic strategies currently in development are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The treatment of R/R RCC primarily consists of inhibition of VEGF, HIF, and mTOR pathways, and the selection of a specific agent depends on the histologic subtype of the tumor, the prior lines of therapy chosen, and patient co-morbidities. Future tumor-based and circulating biomarker research might one day enable the identification of transcriptional signatures that could predict a response to immune, angiogenesis, or HIF-based therapies.

Impact of postprogression therapies on overall survival: Recommendations from the 2023 kidney cancer association think tank meeting

Modern advances in systemic and localized therapies for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have significantly improved patients' outcomes. If disease progression occurs after initial treatment, clinicians often have multiple options for a first salvage therapy. Because salvage and initial treatments both may affect overall survival time, and they may interact in unanticipated ways, there is a growing need to determine sequences of initial therapy and first salvage therapy that maximize overall survival while maintaining quality of life. The complexity of this problem grows if a second salvage therapy must be chosen for patients with treatment-resistant disease or a second progression occurs following first salvage. On November 9, 2023, a think tank was convened during the International Kidney Cancer Symposium (IKCS) North America to discuss challenges in accounting for postprogression therapies when estimating overall survival (OS) time based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. The present manuscript summarizes the topics discussed, with the aim to encourage adoption of statistical methods that account for salvage therapy effects to obtain scientifically valid OS estimation. We highlight limitations of traditional methods for estimating OS that account for initial treatments while ignoring salvage therapy effects and discuss advantages of applying more sophisticated statistical methods for estimation and trial design. These include identifying multistage treatment strategies, correcting for confounding due to salvage therapy effects, and conducting Sequentially Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials (SMARTs) to obtain unbiased comparisons between multistage strategies. We emphasize the critical role of patient input in trial design, and the potential for information technology (IT) advances to support complex trial designs and real-time data analyses. By addressing these challenges, future RCTs can better inform clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in RCC.

A comprehensive review of targeting RAF kinase in cancer

RAF kinases, particularly the BRAF isoform, play a crucial role in the MAPK/ERK signaling pathway, regulating key cellular processes such as proliferation, differentiation, and survival. Dysregulation of this pathway often caused by mutations in the BRAF gene or alterations in upstream regulators like Ras and receptor tyrosine kinases contributes significantly to cancer development. Mutations, such as BRAF-V600E, are present in a variety of malignancies, with the highest prevalence in melanoma. Targeted therapies against RAF kinases have achieved substantial success, especially in BRAF-V600E-mutant melanomas, where inhibitors like vemurafenib and dabrafenib have demonstrated remarkable efficacy, leading to improved patient outcomes. These inhibitors have also shown clinical benefits in cancers such as thyroid and colorectal carcinoma, although to a lesser extent. Despite these successes, therapeutic resistance remains a major hurdle. Resistance mechanisms, including RAF dimerization, feedback reactivation of the MAPK pathway, and paradoxical activation of ERK signaling, often lead to diminished efficacy over time, resulting in disease progression or even secondary malignancies. In response, current research is focusing on novel therapeutic strategies, including combination therapies that target multiple components of the pathway simultaneously, such as MEK inhibitors used in tandem with RAF inhibitors. Additionally, next-generation RAF inhibitors are being developed to address resistance and enhance therapeutic specificity. This review discusses the clinical advancements in RAF-targeted therapies, with a focus on ongoing efforts to overcome therapeutic resistance and enhance outcomes for cancer patients. It also underscores the persistent challenges in effectively targeting RAF kinase in oncology.

Tivozanib Monotherapy in the Frontline Setting for Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma and Favorable Prognosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we discuss which patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may be most suitable for frontline tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy, a treatment option supported by emerging long-term efficacy data including overall survival and quality of life. We specifically focus on tivozanib, a potent and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, which has comparable efficacy to other single-agent TKIs in frontline treatment for mRCC while exhibiting fewer off-target side effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

Combination therapy with TKIs and checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and CPI/CPI combination therapies, as well as TKI monotherapy are recommended frontline treatment options for mRCC. Treatment decisions are complex and based on several factors, including the patient's International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk status, age, comorbidities, and personal preferences related to response, tolerability, and quality of life. TKIs not only serve as backbone of most combination therapies for mRCC, but also remain a viable monotherapy option in the first-line setting for patients in favorable risk groups and those with contraindications to CPI combination therapies. Given that overall survival benefits have not yet been confirmed for CPI-containing combination regimens in favorable risk patients, we argue that frontline single-agent TKI treatment remains a standard of care option for these patients. This is supported by treatment guidelines, even in the era of TKI/CPI combination therapies.

[Contemporary treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma]

BACKGROUND

Renal cell carcinoma is one of the most common malignant tumors in Germany with an increasing incidence. Drug therapy is indicated in relapsed or metastatic disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The article is based on the content of the recent guidelines and a selective literature search.

RESULTS

Combination therapies based on a checkpoint inhibitor are the current standard in first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The median overall survival could thus be extended to > 50 months. The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score is used for risk classification. When selecting a suitable combination therapy, it is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages for each individual patient. There is currently no standard for follow-up therapies. So far, combination therapies have not shown any significant advantage in second-line treatment. It is recommended to switch to a substance that has not yet been used.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, one purely immuno-oncology combination and four combinations of one immune checkpoint inhibitor and one tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) are approved for first-line therapy in Germany. The added value of further intensification of therapy, in particular through triple combinations or further combination therapy in the second line, has not yet been proven.

Phase I Study of Tivozanib Eye Drops in Healthy Volunteers and Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Purpose

To evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and exploratory efficacy of tivozanib eye drops in healthy volunteers and patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Design

This multicenter group-sequential dose escalation phase I study consisted of a placebo-controlled double-masked study of healthy volunteers (cohorts 1 and 2) and an open-label study of patients with nAMD (cohort 3).

Participants

Healthy volunteers: Japanese or White men aged 20 to <50 years. Patients with nAMD with central subfield thickness (CST) ≥300 μm and best-corrected visual acuity score ≥23 letters in the study eye.

Methods

In the single-dose cohort of healthy men (cohort 1: steps 1-5), 1 or 2 tivozanib eye drops (30 μL/drop, 5-minute interval; 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 w/v%) or placebo were administered in 1 eye once. In the multiple-dose cohort of healthy men (cohort 2: steps 1-6), 1 or 2 tivozanib eye drops (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 w/v%) or placebo were administered 3 times daily in 1 eye for 21 days. In the multiple-dose cohort of patients with nAMD (cohort 3, steps 1-3), 1 or 2 tivozanib eye drops (0.5 and 1.0 w/v%) were administered 3 times daily in 1 affected eye for 21 days.

Main Outcome Measures

The safety outcome measures included adverse events (AEs). The pharmacokinetic outcome was serum tivozanib concentration. Among the exploratory efficacy outcomes, CST was evaluated.

Results

In total, 40, 48, and 28 participants were enrolled in cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Serious AEs did not occur in cohorts 1 to 3. The most frequent AE in multiple-dose cohorts was reversible punctate keratitis: placebo arm, 8.3% (healthy men, 1/12); tivozanib arm, 47.2% (healthy men, 17/36) and 14.3% (nAMD, 4/28). Serum tivozanib exposure increased dose-dependently and was similar in healthy men and patients with nAMD. In patients with nAMD, mean CST changes from baseline to day 22 were -27.6 ± 54.88 (0.5 w/v%; 1 drop, 3 times daily), -35.6 ± 49.64 (1.0 w/v%; 1 drop, 3 times daily), and -43.7 ± 55.19 μm (1.0 w/v%; 2 drops, 3 times daily).

Conclusions

Tivozanib eye drops showed a favorable safety profile in healthy Japanese and White men and Japanese patients with nAMD.

Financial Disclosures

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Renal cell carcinoma

The landscape of the management of renal cell carcinoma has evolved substantially in the last decade, leading to improved survival in localised and advanced disease. We review the epidemiology, pathology, and diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma and discuss the evidence for current management strategies from localised to metastatic disease. Developments in adjuvant therapies are discussed, including use of pembrolizumab-the first therapy to achieve overall survival benefit in the adjuvant setting. The treatment of advanced disease, including landmark trials that have established immune checkpoint inhibition as a standard of care, are also reviewed. We also discuss the current controversies that exist surrounding the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, including the use of risk assessment models for disease stratification and treatment selection for frontline therapy. Management of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes is also reviewed. Future directions of research, including a discussion of ongoing clinical trials and the need for reliable biomarkers to guide treatment in kidney cancer, are also highlighted.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression.

Objectives

The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Methods

The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Results

The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Conclusions

Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Administering immunotherapy after anti-vascular targeted therapy improves overall survival of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The Food and Drug Administration of the United States has approved several drugs for treating advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Options for first-line therapy include monotherapy or combination therapy. However, selecting a suitable first-line and second-line treatments to improve overall survival remains an unresolved issue.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients were divided into several grouped according to the treatment sequence of TKI and anti PD-1 administration. The overall survival benefit was evaluated based on the order of administration of anti PD-1 and TKI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective propensity-matched cohort study, we identified 135 patients with mRCC treated at the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Shandong First Medical University from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2022. These patients had received anti PD-1 treatment as part of their first or second line of therapy. Statistical analysis was performed from June 1, 2023, to August 1, 2023. The primary outcome measure was OS, from the date of diagnosis to death or the last follow-up. PFS was monitored during treatment. Survival analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier estimates. By comparing the complete treatment course of patients, the survival of patients in different groups was compared according to the number of immunotherapy lines.

RESULTS

The final cohort comprised 135 patients, of whom 84 received first-line therapy with anti PD-1 (include 6 patients treated with anti PD-1 (tislelizumab, carrelizumab, toripalimab or sintilizumab) alone and 78 patients treated with anti PD-1 combined with anti-vascular TKI (axitinib, sunitinib, solfanitinib or pazopanib)). The remaining 51 patients were treated with anti PD-1 as second-line therapy following an initial regime of TKIs. Patients were initially categorized based on whether anti PD-1 were used in the first-line treatment. It was observed that the OS of patients receiving first-line targeted therapy was higher than those receiving first-line immunotherapy, with a median OS of 33 months versus 15 months. To investigate this outcome further, we refined the patient groups based on the administration sequence of anti PD-1 and TKIs in the treatment regimen. We found that the median PFS of patients with first-line treatments of TKI combined with anti PD-1 was 3.5 months, compared to 14.5 months when TKI combined with anti PD-1 followed first-line TKI (p=0.0092). The median PFS for second-line treatments was 6.5 months versus 15 months (p=0.0014). Similarly, the median OS was 16.66 months and 31.88 months, respectively (p=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that administering immunotherapy following anti-vascular therapy significantly enhances both OS and PFS compared to other sequences of therapies. This finding provides valuable insights and robust data support for clinical decision-making regarding treatment sequencing.

The efficacy of subsequent therapy after failure of anti-PD-1 antibody in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background

The optional regimens of subsequent therapy after failure of anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) antibody in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remain to be explored. There are reports of the efficacy of single-agent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) in patients with mRCC after failure of anti-PD-1 antibody therapy. However, it is not clear whether it is beneficial for patients to receive anti-PD-1 antibody as post-progression treatment. It has great significance to explore whether continuous application of anti-PD-1 antibody is beneficial for patients with mRCC whose diseases progressed to the state of pre-anti-PD-1 therapy. The purposes of this study are to explore the efficacy and safety of subsequent treatment on whether to continue using anti-PD-1 antibody therapy for patients who have progressive mRCC after prior treatment with anti-PD-1 antibody.

Methods

The clinical data of patients with mRCC from the Department of Immunotherapy in the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital from February 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary endpoints were the objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). The ORR and disease control rate (DCR) were estimated with Fisher's exact test. PFS and overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. The associations between potential prognostic variables and PFS were evaluated with univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. A P value of less than or equal to 0.05 was deemed as statistically significant.

Results

A total of 35 patients were included in this study, during which 19 received VEGFR-TKI monotherapy and 16 received the VEGFR-TKI plus anti-PD-1 antibody therapy. Until the last follow-up on June 30, 2022, 19 patients experienced progressive disease (PD), five were in remission, and 11 kept stable disease (SD). After a median follow-up of 28.7 [95% confidence interval (CI): 17.0-35.6] months, the median PFS (mPFS) was 11.6 months for the VEGFR-TKI group and 9.1 months for the VEGFR-TKI plus anti-PD-1 antibody group [hazard ratio (HR) =0.81, 95% CI: 0.32-1.03, P=0.44]. Median OS (mOS) were 16.9 and 11.2 months respectively (HR =0.99, 95% CI: 0.44-2.27, P=0.90). The ORRs were 26.3% and 0% (P=0.049), and the DCRs were 47.4% and 43.8% (P=0.55) respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 14 patients (73.7%) in the VEGFR-TKI group and 14 patients (87.5%) in the VEGFR-TKI plus anti-PD-1 antibody group (P=0.42); grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in two patients (10.5%) and six patients (37.5%) respectively (P=0.11).

Conclusions

VEGFR-TKI monotherapy is an efficacious regimen for patients with mRCC whose diseases progressed on previous anti-PD-1 antibody therapy, and continuous anti-PD-1 therapy after failure of anti-PD-1 antibody could not provide additional clinical benefit but increased the incidence of TRAEs.

Downregulation of UBB potentiates SP1/VEGFA-dependent angiogenesis in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) presents a unique profile characterized by high levels of angiogenesis and robust vascularization. Understanding the underlying mechanisms driving this heterogeneity is essential for developing effective therapeutic strategies. This study revealed that ubiquitin B (UBB) is downregulated in ccRCC, which adversely affects the survival of ccRCC patients. UBB exerts regulatory control over vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) by directly interacting with specificity protein 1 (SP1), consequently exerting significant influence on angiogenic processes. Subsequently, we validated that DNA methyltransferase 3 alpha (DNMT3A) is located in the promoter of UBB to epigenetically inhibit UBB transcription. Additionally, we found that an unharmonious UBB/VEGFA ratio mediates pazopanib resistance in ccRCC. These findings underscore the critical involvement of UBB in antiangiogenic therapy and unveil a novel therapeutic strategy for ccRCC.

Combination of Anti-Angiogenics and Immunotherapies in Renal Cell Carcinoma Show Their Limits: Targeting Fibrosis to Break through the Glass Ceiling?

This review explores treating metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) through current therapeutic modalities-anti-angiogenic therapies and immunotherapies. While these approaches represent the forefront, their limitations and variable patient responses highlight the need to comprehend underlying resistance mechanisms. We specifically investigate the role of fibrosis, prevalent in chronic kidney disease, influencing tumour growth and treatment resistance. Our focus extends to unravelling the intricate interplay between fibrosis, immunotherapy resistance, and the tumour microenvironment for effective therapy development. The analysis centres on connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), revealing its multifaceted role in ccRCC-promoting fibrosis, angiogenesis, and cancer progression. We discuss the potential of targeting CTGF to address the problem of fibrosis in ccRCC. Emphasising the crucial relationship between fibrosis and the immune system in ccRCC, we propose that targeting CTGF holds promise for overcoming obstacles to cancer treatment. However, we recognise that an in-depth understanding of the mechanisms and potential limitations is imperative and, therefore, advocate for further research. This is an essential prerequisite for the successful integration of CTGF-targeted therapies into the clinical landscape.

Successful long-term management of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma with nivolumab: a case report and literature review

In Colombia, renal cancer is a rare condition, with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) being the most prevalent neoplasm. In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been proposed for the management of metastatic disease, as they have shown improved rates of response and long-term survival. Furthermore, they exhibit a favourable tolerance profile, and adverse events causing significant morbidity are infrequent. We report the case of a 61-year-old male patient initially diagnosed with early-stage ccRCC who underwent right nephrectomy in 2009. Six years later, disease recurrence with metastatic compromise was documented, which led to the resection of the L1 vertebral body followed by radiotherapy and maintenance treatment with sunitinib. Due to disease progression, treatment with sunitinib was discontinued. Subsequently, everolimus was initiated as second-line immunotherapy, which was later discontinued due to the appearance of new metastatic lesions. In 2017, the patient was referred to our institution, where a third-line pharmacological treatment with nivolumab was initiated. In 2022, complete remission by positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) was evidenced, which has been sustained to date. This case demonstrates the efficacy and safety of ICI in patients with metastatic ccRCC. The case presented is relevant in that it describes the achievement of complete remission in a patient who did not respond to the first two lines of immunotherapy. Given the limited literature regarding the discontinuation of therapy after achieving sustained remission, further research is warranted to explore this topic.

Efficacy and safety of cabozantinib rechallenge in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective multicentric study

BACKGROUND

Despite metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) expanded treatment options, disease progression ultimately occurs for most patients. Rechallenge may be a compelling strategy in a refractory setting. Cabozantinib is the standard of care in first and later lines of therapy, but its activity in rechallenge is unknown.

METHODS

This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib rechallenge, as defined by a second exposure after an interval of ≥3 months without treatment or ≥1 other treatment line, in patients with mRCC. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (PFS) at rechallenge. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate, and safety at rechallenge.

RESULTS

We included 51 mRCC patients who received cabozantinib in a rechallenge setting between 2017 and 2022. Median age at diagnosis was 54 years, 78% were male, 90% had clear cell mRCC, and 92% had prior nephrectomy. 15 patients (29%) were rechallenged after a pause in treatment, whereas 36 (70.6%) had ≥1 other treatment lines between first cabozantinib exposure (CABO-1) and rechallenge (CABO-2). Median PFS was 15.1 months (mo, 95% Confidence interval 11.2-22.1) at CABO-1 and 14.4mo (95%CI 9.8-NR) at CABO-2. Median overall survival was 67.6mo for CABO-1 (95% CI 52.2-NR) and 27.4mo for CABO-2 (95%CI 17.2-NR); objective response rate was 70.6% for CABO-1 and 60% for CABO-2. CABO-2 PFS was higher for patients with CABO-1 PFS > 12 months, and for those who discontinued CABO-1 because of toxicity, without statistical significance. There were no unexpected adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Cabozantinib rechallenge is a feasible treatment option with potential clinical benefit for mRCC patients.

Medication adherence reporting in pivotal clinical trials: overview of oral oncological drugs

OBJECTIVES

To assess how and to what extent adherence to medication is reported in pivotal clinical trials of oral cancer drugs.

METHODS

All drugs authorised by the European Medicines Agency from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2019 were considered for analysis. For each pivotal trial we extracted the journal of publication, phase of the study, posology, mention of adherence within the main text of the published article or additional material and the terms in which the adherence was reported.

RESULTS

Thirty drugs were included in the analysis from 56 clinical trials. Eleven articles (19.6%) contained a mention of medication adherence in the main document, 26 (46.4%) in the supplementary material and 19 (33.9%) did not contain any reference to adherence. Seven studies reported medication adherence between the results, expressed as number of patients discontinuing treatment for non-compliance and mean or median percentage.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication adherence in pivotal clinical trials of oral oncological drugs is poorly represented. There should be a greater level of reporting in the results and it should be included among the minimum set of recommendations in reporting health research.

An Overview of Renal Cell Carcinoma Hallmarks, Drug Resistance, and Adjuvant Therapies

Renal neoplasms are highlighted as one of the 10 most common types of cancer. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common type of renal cancer, considered the seventh most common type of cancer in the Western world. The most frequently altered genes described as altered are VHL, PBRM1, SETD2, KDM5C, PTEN, BAP1, mTOR, TP53, TCEB1 (ELOC), SMARCA4, ARID1A, and PIK3CA. RCC therapies can be classified in three groups: monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and mTOR inhibitors. Besides, there are targeted agents to treat RCC. However, frequently patients present side effects and resistance. Even though many multidrug resistance mechanisms already have been reported to RCC, studies focused on revealing new biomarkers as well as more effective antitumor therapies with no or low side effects are very important. Some studies reported that natural products, such as honey, epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), curcumin, resveratrol, and englerin A showed antitumor activity against RCC. Moreover, nanoscience is another strategy to improve RCC treatment and reduce the side effects due to the improvement in pharmacokinetics and reduction of toxicities of chemotherapies. Taking this into account, we conducted a systemic review of recent research findings on RCC hallmarks, drug resistance, and adjuvant therapies. In conclusion, a range of studies reported that RCC is characterized by high incidence and increased mortality rates because of the development of resistance to standard therapies. Given the importance of improving RCC treatment and reducing adverse effects, nanoscience and natural products can be included in therapeutic strategies.

Biomarkers in renal cell carcinoma and their targeted therapies: a review

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most life-threatening urinary malignancies displaying poor response to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Although in the recent past there have been tremendous advancements in using targeted therapies for RCC, despite that it remains the most lethal urogenital cancer with a 5-year survival rate of roughly 76%. Timely diagnosis is still the key to prevent the progression of RCC into metastatic stages as well as to treat it. But due to the lack of definitive and specific diagnostic biomarkers for RCC and its asymptomatic nature in its early stages, it becomes very difficult to diagnose it. Reliable and distinct molecular markers can not only refine the diagnosis but also classifies the tumors into thier sub-types which can escort subsequent management and possible treatment for patients. Potential biomarkers can permit a greater degree of stratification of patients affected by RCC and help tailor novel targeted therapies. The review summarizes the most promising epigenetic [DNA methylation, microRNA (miRNA; miR), and long noncoding RNA (lncRNA)] and protein biomarkers that have been known to be specifically involved in diagnosis, cancer progression, and metastasis of RCC, thereby highlighting their utilization as non-invasive molecular markers in RCC. Also, the rationale and development of novel molecular targeted drugs and immunotherapy drugs [such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)] as potential RCC therapeutics along with the proposed implication of these biomarkers in predicting response to targeted therapies will be discussed.

Identifying Medications Underlying Communication Atypicalities in Psychotic and Affective Disorders: A Pharmacovigilance Study Within the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System

PURPOSE

Communication atypicalities are considered promising markers of a broad range of clinical conditions. However, little is known about the mechanisms and confounders underlying them. Medications might have a crucial, relatively unknown role both as potential confounders and offering an insight on the mechanisms at work. The integration of regulatory documents with disproportionality analyses provides a more comprehensive picture to account for in future investigations of communication-related markers. The aim of this study was to identify a list of drugs potentially associated with communicative atypicalities within psychotic and affective disorders.

METHOD

We developed a query using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities to search for communicative atypicalities within the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (updated June 2021). A Bonferroni-corrected disproportionality analysis (reporting odds ratio) was separately performed on spontaneous reports involving psychotic, affective, and non-neuropsychiatric disorders, to account for the confounding role of different underlying conditions. Drug-adverse event associations not already reported in the Side Effect Resource database of labeled adverse drug reactions (unexpected) were subjected to further robustness analyses to account for expected biases.

RESULTS

A list of 291 expected and 91 unexpected potential confounding medications was identified, including drugs that may irritate (inhalants) or desiccate (anticholinergics) the larynx, impair speech motor control (antipsychotics), or induce nodules (acitretin) or necrosis (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors) on vocal cords; sedatives and stimulants; neurotoxic agents (anti-infectives); and agents acting on neurotransmitter pathways (dopamine agonists).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide a list of medications to account for in future studies of communication-related markers in affective and psychotic disorders. The current test case illustrates rigorous procedures for digital phenotyping, and the methodological tools implemented for large-scale disproportionality analyses can be considered a road map for investigations of communication-related markers in other clinical populations.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.23721345.

Comparative safety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective: This study aimed to compare the safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for use as monotherapy or combination therapy for the first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Methods: A systematic review with frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of: cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, tivozanib, cabozantinib + nivolumab, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, axitinib + avelumab, and axitinib + pembrolizumab in previously untreated adult patients with metastatic clear cell RCC. Eligible studies were identified by two reviewers in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias for RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The P score was used to determine the treatment ranking. The mean probability of an event along with the relative measures of the NMA was considered with the treatment rankings. Results: A total of 13 RCTs were included in the systematic review and NMA. Sorafenib and tivozanib used as monotherapy were the best treatment options. Sorafenib achieved the highest P score for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), fatigue, nausea, vomiting of any grade, and hypertension of any grade or grade ≥3. Tivozanib achieved the highest P score for AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, and grade ≥3 diarrhea. Sunitinib was the best treatment option in terms of diarrhea and dysphonia of any grade, while cabozantinib, pazopanib, and axitinib + pembrolizumab-in terms of grade ≥3 fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. TKIs used in combination were shown to have a poorer safety profile than those used as monotherapy. Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab was considered the worst option in terms of any AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, treatment discontinuation due to AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, fatigue of any grade, nausea, vomiting, and grade ≥3 nausea. Axitinib + avelumab was the worst treatment option in terms of dysphonia, grade ≥3 diarrhea, and hypertension, while cabozantinib + nivolumab was the worst option in terms of grade ≥3 vomiting. Interestingly, among the other safety endpoints, cabozantinib monotherapy had the lowest P score for diarrhea and hypertension of any grade. Conclusion: The general safety profile, including common AEs, is better when TKIs are used as monotherapy vs. in combination with immunological agents. To confirm these findings, further research is needed, including large RCTs.

SEOM SOGUG clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2022)

Renal cancer is the seventh most common cancer in men and the tenth in women. The aim of this article is to review the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of renal carcinoma accompanied by recommendations with new evidence and treatment algorithms. A new pathologic classification of RCC by the World Health Organization (WHO) was published in 2022 and this classification would be considered a "bridge" to a future molecular classification. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab is an option for intermediate-or high-risk cases, as well as patients after complete resection of metastatic disease. More data are needed in the future, including positive overall survival data. Clinical prognostic classification, preferably IMDC, should be used for treatment decision making in mRCC. Cytoreductive nephrectomy should not be deemed mandatory in individuals with intermediate-poor IMDC/MSKCC risk who require systemic therapy. Metastasectomy can be contemplated in selected subjects with a limited number of metastases or long metachronous disease-free interval. For the population of patients with metastatic ccRCC as a whole, the combination of pembrolizumab-axitinib, nivolumab-cabozantinib, or pembrolizumab-lenvatinib can be considered as the first option based on the benefit obtained in OS versus sunitinib. In cases that have an intermediate IMDC and poor prognosis, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has demonstrated superior OS compared to sunitinib. As for individuals with advanced RCC previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, nivolumab and cabozantinib are the options of choice. When there is progression following initial immunotherapy-based treatment, we recommend treatment with an antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. While no clear sequence can be advocated, medical oncologists and patients should be aware of the recent advances and new strategies that improve survival and quality of life in the setting of metastatic RC.

Mechanisms and clinical implications in renal carcinoma resistance: narrative review of immune checkpoint inhibitors

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common histological subtype of renal cell carcinoma. The prognosis for patients with ccRCC has improved over recent years with the use of combination therapies with an anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) backbone. This has enhanced the quality of life and life expectancy of patients with this disease. Unfortunately, not all patients benefit; eventually, most patients will develop resistance to therapy and progress. Recent molecular, biochemical, and immunological research has extensively researched anti-angiogenic and immune-based treatment resistance mechanisms. This analysis offers an overview of the principles underpinning the resistance pathways related to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Additionally, novel approaches to overcome resistance that may be considered for the trial context are discussed.

Comparison of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with rhabdoid and sarcomatoid differentiations

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with rhabdoid (mRCC-R) and sarcomatoid (mRCC-S) differentiations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-institutional cohort study, we included patients with RCC with rhabdoid (RCC-R) and sarcomatoid (RCC-S) differentiation, who were treated with TKIs after metastasis at our institute from 2013 to 2021. Patient characteristics, treatments, and clinical outcomes were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

We identified 111 patients with RCC-R or RCC-S differentiations, of which 23 patients were included in the final analysis. Of the 23 patients, 10 (43.5%) were grouped as mRCC-R and 13 (56.5%) as mRCC-S. At a median follow-up of 40 months, mRCC-R and mRCC-S progressed in 7 of 10 and 12 of 13 patients, respectively. In addition, four and eight patients died in the mRCC-R and mRCC-S groups, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) of the two groups was 19 months (mRCC-R: 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.08-33.92) and 7 months (mRCC-S: 95% CI 2.03-11.96), while the median overall survival (OS) was 32 months and 21 months, respectively. mRCC-S had a worse prognosis than mRCC-R. Based on the univariate Cox regression model, single metastasis or multiple metastasis of tumor, rhabdoid differentiation, and sarcomatoid differentiation were predictors of PFS but not OS.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of TKIs in the treatment of mRCC-R and mRCC-S may be different.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Rechallenge in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies represent the current standard of care in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Despite a clear benefit in survival outcomes, a considerable proportion of patients experience disease progression; prospective data about second-line therapy after first-line treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors are limited to small phase II studies. As with other solid tumors (such as melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer), preliminary data about the clinical efficacy of rechallenge of immunotherapy (alone or in combination with other drugs) in renal cell carcinoma are beginning to emerge. Nevertheless, the role of rechallenge in immunotherapy in this setting of disease remains unclear and cannot be considered a standard of care; currently some randomized trials are exploring this approach in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The aim of our review is to summarize main evidence available in the literature concerning immunotherapy rechallenge in renal carcinoma, especially focusing on biological rationale of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors, on the published data of clinical efficacy and on future perspectives.

Clinical Outcomes of Tivozanib Monotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multicentric UK Real-World Analysis

BACKGROUND

Tivozanib is a licensed as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes from tivozanib in a real-world mRCC population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with mRCC commencing first-line tivozanib between March 2017 and May 2019 were identified across four specialist cancer centres in the UK. Data relating to response, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs) were collected retrospectively with censoring on 31 December 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients were identified: median age was 69 years; 78% had ECOG PS 0-1; 82% had clear cell histology; 66% had previous nephrectomy; International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score was 22% favourable (F), 52% intermediate (I) and 26% poor (P). Twenty-six per cent were switched from another tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to tivozanib due to toxicity. Median follow-up was 26.6 months with 18% remaining on treatment at data censoring. Median PFS was 8.75 months. Median PFS by IMDC risk group was: F = 23.0 months; I = 10.0 months; P = 3.0 months, p value < 0.0001. Median OS was 25.0 months (F = not reached (NR) with 72% alive at data cut-off; I = 26.0 months; P = 7.0 months, p value < 0.0001). Seventy-seven per cent had an AE of any grade, and 13% had a grade ≥ 3 AE. Eighteen per cent of patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. No patients who discontinued a prior TKI due to AEs stopped tivozanib due to AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest comparable activity of tivozanib with the pivotal trial data and other TKIs in a real-world population. Its tolerability positions tivozanib as an attractive first-line option for those unsuitable for combination therapies or unable to tolerate other TKIs.

First-line therapy for elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the immuno-oncology era: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) or immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), either alone or in combination, confers a significant overall survival (OS) benefit for metastatic RCC in the first-line setting. However, guidance for optimal treatment selection in elderly patients remains limited.

METHODS

A database search was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating first-line regimens for patients with advanced RCC older than 65 years old. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Indirect comparisons of available regimens were estimated using a random-effects network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 14 and five RCTs were eligible for PFS and OS analyses. Compared with sunitinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.97) and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.4-0.94) were associated with improved OS. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib, and cabozantinib alone each showed improved PFS over sunitinib. Among these, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib showed better PFS than pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91), but no PFS difference compared to nivolumab plus cabozantinib (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.03) and cabozantinib alone (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.40-1.77). Network ranking showed pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib provided the favored OS and PFS benefit for elderly patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ICB with TKI such as pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib needs to be considered over monotherapy in the elderly population, but further validation using real-world data or prospective trials is necessary to confirm the efficacy and safety of first-line regimens for the geriatric population with advanced RCC.

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.

Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit

BACKGROUND

The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised.

DESIGN

A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items.

A novel immune-related model to predict prognosis and responsiveness to checkpoint and angiogenesis blockade therapy in advanced renal cancer

Background

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) and anti-angiogenic drug combination has prolonged the survival of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, not all patients receive clinical benefits from this intervention. In this study, we aimed to establish a promising immune-related prognostic model to stratify the patients responding to ICB and anti-angiogenic drug combination and facilitate the development of personalized therapies for patients with RCC.

Materials and methods

Based on clinical annotations and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) data of 407 patients with advanced RCC from the IMmotion151 cohort, nine immune-associated differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between responders and non-responders to atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody) plus bevacizumab (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody) treatment were identified via weighted gene co-expression network analysis. We also conducted single-sample gene set enrichment analysis to develop a novel immune-related risk score (IRS) model and further estimate the prognosis of patients with RCC by predicting their sensitivity to chemotherapy and responsiveness to immunotherapy. IRS model was further validated using the JAVELIN Renal 101 cohort, the E-MTAB-3218 cohort, the IMvigor210 and GSE78220 cohort. Predictive significance of the IRS model for advanced RCC was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves.

Results

The IRS model was constructed using nine immune-associated DEGs: SPINK5, SEMA3E, ROBO2, BMP5, ORM1, CRP, CTSE, PMCH and CCL3L1. Advanced RCC patients with high IRS had a high risk of undesirable clinical outcomes (hazard ratio = 1.91; 95% confidence interval = 1.43–2.55; P &lt; 0.0001). Transcriptome analysis revealed that the IRS-low group exhibited significantly high expression levels of CD8+ T effectors, antigen-processing machinery, and immune checkpoints, whereas the epithelial–mesenchymal transition pathway was enriched in the IRS-high group. IRS model effectively differentiated the responders from non-responders to ICB combined with angiogenesis blockade therapy or immunotherapy alone, with area under the curve values of 0.822 in the IMmotion151 cohort, 0.751 in the JAVELIN Renal 101 cohort, and 0.776 in the E-MTAB-3218 cohort.

Conclusion

IRS model is a reliable and robust immune signature that can be used for patient selection to optimize the efficacy of ICB plus anti-angiogenic drug therapies in patients with advanced RCC.

Current Status of Tivozanib in the Treatment of Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) against vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) has transformed the therapeutic landscape for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, dose reductions and interruptions are frequently needed due to limited toxicity, mostly from off-target effects. Tivozanib is a potent, selective VEGFR TKI with weak off-target effects. TIVO-1 and TIVO-3 were randomized controlled phase 3 trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy and after failing two previous lines (including targeted therapy), respectively. Tivozanib did not confer any survival advantage, but it significantly increased progression-free survival, response rates, and the duration of responses with a superior safety profile. Although results from subgroup analysis need to be interpreted cautiously, tivozanib demonstrated superiority after two previous lines of VEGFR TKIs or after axitinib, another selective VEGFR inhibitor. Tivozanib also demonstrated durable activity after therapy with an immune-checkpoint inhibitor, while an ongoing study investigating the combination of tivozanib/nivolumab has shown promising preliminary results regarding efficacy and safety. In conclusion, tivozanib was recently added to our therapeutic armamentarium against advanced RCC. Ongoing rational therapeutic combinations of tivozanib will determine the optimal setting in which the maximum benefit can be derived.

Combinations of Anti-Angiogenic Agents and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Best Option?

Over the past decade, major advances have been made in the treatment of advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinomas, specifically clear cell carcinomas. For many years the optimal approach was sequential; thus, monotherapies [principally tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)] targeting angiogenesis until toxicity or progressive disease developed. The rationale was the common mechanisms of action of the targeting agents and avoidance of the risk of overlapping toxicities. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective monotherapies, and combinations thereof with anti-angiogenic agents were thus later considered. Synergistic interactions were reported in vitro. Clinical efficacy was evident in three pivotal phase III trials with axitinib-pembrolizumab, cabozantinib-nivolumab, and lenvatinib-pembrolizumab combinations. Two other combinations showed interesting results but did not improve overall survival. However, the data aided our understanding of the new therapeutic approaches. A combination of the ICIs nivolumab and ipilimumab was the first to evidence better progression-free and overall survival compared to sunitinib in patients with intermediate or unfavourable prognoses as evaluated by the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC). Here we focus on the TKI-ICI combinations, emphasising the rationale of their use and the clinical results. To date, no biomarker facilitating the selection of an optimal treatment by disease and patient status has been reported.

LGALS1 was related to the prognosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma identified by weighted correlation gene network analysis combined with differential gene expression analysis

Understanding the molecular mechanism of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is essential for predicting the prognosis and developing new targeted therapies. Our study is to identify hub genes related to ccRCC and to further analyze its prognostic significance. The ccRCC gene expression profiles of GSE46699 from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database and datasets from the Cancer Genome Atlas Database The Cancer Genome Atlas were used for the Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis (WGCNA) and differential gene expression analysis. We screened out 397 overlapping genes from the four sets of results, and then performed Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genome (KEGG) pathways. In addition, the protein-protein interaction (PPI) network of 397 overlapping genes was mapped using the STRING database. We identified ten hub genes (KNG1, TIMP1, ALB, C3, GPC3, VCAN, P4HB, CHGB, LGALS1, EGF) using the CytoHubba plugin of Cytoscape based on the Maximal Clique Centrality (MCC) score. According to Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, higher expression of LGALS1 and TIMP1 was related to poorer overall survival (OS) in patients with ccRCC. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that the expression of LGALS1 was an independent risk factor for poor prognosis. Moreover, the higher the clinical grade and stage of ccRCC, the higher the expression of LGALS1. LGALS1 may play an important role in developing ccRCC and may be potential a biomarker for prognosis and treatment targets.

Therapeutic sequencing in advanced renal cell carcinoma: How to choose considering clinical and biological factors

In the last fifteen years a better understanding of the biological processes promoting tumour growth and progression led to an impressive revolution in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment landscape. Angiogenesis plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of RCC. These biological evidences led to targeted therapies interfering with vascular endothelial growth factor and mammalian target of rapamycin pathway. Another big step in the RCC therapeutic landscape was recently made because of the understanding of the interplay between angiogenesis and immune cells. Dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and ICIs plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) combinations have been approved considering overall survival benefit compared to targeted therapies as first line treatment. We summarize the activity and the biological rationale of ICIs combinations as mRCC first line therapy. Additionally, we review the clinical and biological criteria useful to guide clinicians in the choice of treatment sequencing focusing on ICIs combinations resistance mechanisms.

Therapeutic Management of Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Revolution in Every Decade

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) oncogenesis is mainly driven by VHL gene inactivation, leading to overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The use of tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) directed against VEGF and its receptor (VEGFR) revolutionised the management of metastatic renal cancer in the 2000s. The more recent development of next-generation TKIs such as cabozantinib or lenvatinib has made it possible to bypass some of the mechanisms of resistance to first-generation anti-VEGFR TKIs. During the decade 2010-2020, the development of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapies revolutionised the management of many solid cancers, including RCC, in first- and subsequent-line settings. Dual ICB or ICB plus anti-VEGFR TKI combinations are now the standard of care for patients with advanced clear cell RCC. To optimise these combination therapies while preserving patient quality of life, escalation and de-escalation strategies are being evaluated in prospective randomised trials, based on patient selection according to their prognosis risk. Finally, new therapeutic approaches, such as targeting hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) and the development of innovative treatments using antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), CAR-T cells, or radiopharmaceuticals, are all potential candidates to improve further patient survival.

Patient-reported experiences with side effects of kidney cancer therapies and corresponding information flow

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have improved over recent years. Various therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma are currently approved for first and successive lines. Having various treatment options makes it important to reflect how patients experience side effects in the real-world setting. So far, data on the side effects of these treatments have only been collected within clinical trials, and have been mostly assessed by the investigator and not as patient-reported outcomes. Our aim was to determine patient-reported experiences of side effects in the real-world setting and to evaluate the doctor-patient communication regarding side effects. Data were collected via an anonymous, voluntary online survey given to members of a support group for RCC; the questionnaire was completed by 104 mRCC patients.

RESULTS

89.1% of participants were suffering from side effects of any grade. These appeared to be higher for patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors compared to those treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (98.4% vs. 68.4%). However, information on side effects is scarce: 4.0% had never heard anything about them while only 18.8% of participants received detailed information on possible side effects. Although 85.6% of participants reported side effects to their physician, 34.6% did not encounter an improvement. Limitations of the study include the design as an online questionnaire and the small sample, consisting only of members of a support group.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences can be seen between patient-reported side effects within our survey and those based on clinical trials. A shift towards more patient-reported outcomes is needed. In addition, patients seeking the advice of their physician on side effects are in need of more-or better-information and support.

Optimizing targeted drug selection in combination therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis of safety

OBJECTIVE

For patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the dose of targeted agents was recommended in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We performed a network meta-analysis to describe a categorized safety ranking profile and assess the adaptability of the combination options of targeted agents.

METHODS

The targeted agents refer to vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. Randomized controlled trials comparing these drugs were enrolled in a Bayesian model network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen clinical trials with 11 treatments and 10,615 patients were included. For grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs), compared with placebo, lenvatinib plus everolimus showed worse safety than all other treatments except for lenvatinib (placebo vs. OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.78). Everolimus was generally the safest agent (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.50-3.14). Sorafenib arose the least renal AEs (placebo vs. OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06-11.64), whereas lenvatinib plus everolimus had the highest risk of renal toxicity (placebo vs. 0.17 95% CI 0.01-1.02). For gastrointestinal symptoms, everolimus was related to much lower toxicity than other agents. In the respiratory safety analysis, tivozanib (placebo vs. OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07-0.31) and axitinib (OR 5.43, 95% CI 3.26-9.22) were the riskiest agents. In terms of hepatobiliary (placebo vs. OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09-2.10) and hemotoxicity (placebo vs. OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.14-7.68) related AEs, lenvatinib was found to be the safest treatment compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Everolimus, with the best safety of grade ≥ 3, gastrointestinal, and respiratory AEs, was more likely to be considered for combination therapies. Lenvatinib appears to be the safest for blood/lymphatic and hepatobiliary AEs. For patients with renal disorders, sorafenib arises the least renal toxicity AEs. This study will guide treatment options and optimize the trial design for advanced or metastatic RCC.

Activity of Immunotherapy Regimens on Primary Renal Tumours: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) are widely used in treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) forms part of multimodality treatment in advanced disease, however there is no prospective evidence for its use in the ICPI era. Trials of neoadjuvant ICPIs in RCC are underway; understanding the anticipated effect of ICPIs on the primary tumour may help clinical decision making in both localised and advanced settings. METHODS: A systematic search (PubMed, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov) of English literature from 2012 to 2022 was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. 2,398 records were identified, 54 were included in the analysis. RESULTS: In the metastatic setting, response in the primary tumour (≥30% reduction in size) is seen in 33–56% of patients treated with dual ICPI or ICPI + VEGFR-TKI. Pathological complete response rates were 14% for patients undergoing CN after a period of ICPI therapy. In the neoadjuvant setting there is a single published trial of VEGFR-TKI + ICPI, 30% of patients had a≥30% reduction in size of the primary. This appears superior to single agent ICPI. Grade 3 adverse event rates are comparable to the metastatic setting. CONCLUSIONS: A period of ICPI combination therapy followed by nephrectomy may be considered for selected patients as a strategy to manage metastatic disease. In the neoadjuvant setting, it is not clear whether ICPI + VEGFR-TKI is superior to VEGFR-TKI alone. There is minimal data on whether either CN after ICPI in metastatic patients, or neoadjuvant ICPI therapy for localised disease, improves long term survival.

Cell Differentiation Trajectory Predicts Prognosis and Immunotherapeutic Response in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the main type of malignancy in kidney related to glucose metabolism. Primary single cell culture and single cell sequencing are novel research technologies. In this study, we explored the differentiation status of ccRCC cells and its significance in prognosis and immunotherapeutic response through bioinformatics. We characterized distinct differentiation states and differentiation-related genes (DRGs) in ccRCC cells through single cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis. Combined with bulk RNA-seq data, we classified patients into two clusters and found that this classification was closely correlated with patient prognosis and immunotherapeutic responses. Based on machine learning, we identified a prognostic risk model composed of 14 DRGs, including BTG2, CDKN1A, COL6A1, CPM, CYB5D2, FOSB, ID2, ISG15, PLCG2, SECISBP2, SOCS3, TES, ZBTB16, and ZNF704, to predict the survival rate of patients and then constructed a nomogram model integrating clinicopathological characteristics and risk score for clinical practice. In the study of immune checkpoints, we found that patients in the high-risk group had a disposition to get worse prognosis and better effects of immune checkpoint blocking therapies. Finally, we found the expression level of model DRGs was associated with a tumor-immune microenvironment (TIME) pattern and the response of 83 compounds or inhibitors was significantly different in the two risk groups. In a word, our study highlights the potential contribution of cell differentiation in prognosis judgment and immunotherapy response and offers promising therapeutic options for ccRCC patients.

Improved overall survival of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients in the era of modern tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors: results from a real-life, population-based Austrian study comprising three decades of follow-up

BACKGROUND

The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has substantially advanced over the last three decades, whereby data from controlled clinical trials indicate significant improvements regarding patients' overall survival (OS) in highly selected patient cohorts. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of potentially game changing drugs on patients' outcomes by comparing three different historical mRCC treatment eras.

METHODS

In all, 914 mRCC patients who were diagnosed between July 1985 and September 2020 were included into this observational study and assigned to three different treatment eras ['cytokine', 'first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)', and 'modern TKIs/immunotherapy'] based on the EMA approval dates of sunitinib (July 2006) and nivolumab (June 2015) in mRCC treatment. OS was considered the primary study endpoint. Kaplan-Meier analyses, log-rank tests, and uni- and multivariable Cox regression models were performed.

RESULTS

OS was significantly longer in patients of the modern TKIs/immunotherapy era (median OS not reached) as compared to the cytokine (2.4 years) and first-generation TKIs era (1.7 years, all p < 0.001). Moreover, patients of the modern TKIs/immunotherapy era demonstrated a significantly better prognosis [hazard ratio (HR): 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.32-0.55, p < 0.001] compared to those of the cytokine era, while no statistically significant difference was observed between the cytokine and the first-generation TKIs era cohort (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.89-1.41, p = 0.341). Subgroup analyses stratified by the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups showed a significantly longer OS in the modern TKIs/immunotherapy era as compared to first-generation TKIs and cytokines across all IMDC risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Significant advances in the systemic medical treatment of mRCC during the recent decade and the introduction of immunotherapy exerted a major impact on patient outcomes in terms of OS in a real-life population.

Renal adverse reactions of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of tumours: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Objectives: Tumours remain a serious threat to human life. Following rapid progress in oncology research, tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been used to treat multiple tumour types. Given the great influence of kidneys on pharmacokinetics, renal toxicities associated with TKIs have attracted attention. However, the TKIs with the lowest risks of renal impairment are unclear. In this study, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the incidence of renal impairment among different TKIs in patients with tumours. Methods and analysis: Six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and China Biomedical Literature Database) were electronically searched from inception to 1 November 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials on the incidence of renal impairment for different TKIs in patients with tumours. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Then, a pairwise meta-analysis was conducted using Stata version 13, and network meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework was conducted using R software version 3.5.3 with the package "gemtc 0.8-2" recalling JAGS (version 4.3.0). Results: Overall, 34 randomized controlled trials were included in this study. Although renal toxicity was common among patients receiving TKIs, the incidence and severity greatly differed among the drugs and studies. Elevated creatinine and protein levels were the most common nephrotoxic events, whereas haematuria was relatively rare. Among TKIs, nintedanib and ripretinib carried the lowest risks of renal impairment. Conclusion: TKIs displayed different profiles of renal toxicity because of their different targets and underlying mechanisms. Clinicians should be aware of the risks of renal impairment to select the optimal treatment and improve patient adherence to treatment. Systematic Review Registration: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022295853].

A Study of Pazopanib Safety and Efficacy in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and ECOG Performance Status 2 (Pazo2): An Open label, Multicentre, Single Arm, Phase II Trial

AIM

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and poor performance status (PS≥2) are often deemed unsuitable for treatment. The Pazo2 trial aimed to assess tolerability and efficacy of pazopanib as first-line treatment in renal cancer patients with ECOG PS2.

METHODS

Pazo2 was a prospective, single arm, open label, multicentre, phase II trial, conducted in 26 UK centres. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, with advanced or metastatic renal cancer and a clear cell component (aRCC), measurable disease as per RECIST Criteria 1.1, and ECOG PS2. Co-primary outcomes, assessed at 6-months after patients entered the trial, were tolerability, defined as the proportion of patients who did not develop "intolerable" adverse events, and efficacy, defined as the proportion of all patients who were progression-free and alive.

RESULTS

Between February 21, 2013 and August 12, 2016, 75 patients were registered. Median age was 68.6 years (IQR 64.6-76.0), 100% ECOG PS2, 62.7% 'poor risk' (International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium). Of the 65 evaluable patients, 70.8% (95% CI: 58.8, 80.4) did not develop "intolerable" adverse events and 56.9% (95% CI: 44.8, 68.2) were still alive and progression-free 6 months after starting pazopanib. Twenty-seven patients developed serious adverse events deemed to be related to pazopanib.

CONCLUSION

These data suggests that pazopanib is tolerated and effective in aRCC patients with PS2 and represents a treatment option for patients who cannot receive or tolerate immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors promotes renal cancer progression through MCPIP1 tumor-suppressor downregulation and c-Met activation

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the most commonly used targeted therapeutics in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC); however, drug resistance limits their utility and can lead to tumor "flare-up" and progression. In this study, we show that RCC resistance to sunitinib and sorafenib involves different mechanisms and leads to increased malignancy. Sunitinib decreased tumor growth and cell motility along with increased E-cadherin expression and secretion of the proangiogenic cytokines IL6 and IL8, which activated senescence in ccRCC cells and led to VE-cadherin phosphorylation, enhancing tumor angiogenesis. Sorafenib resistance increased the levels of mesenchymal markers and the secretion of MMP9, which cleaved VE-cadherin and disrupted endothelial cell integrity. Both sunitinib resistance and sorafenib resistance led to activation of the c-Met receptor IRAK1 and downregulation of the tumor suppressor MCPIP1, resulting in an increase in the metastasis of resistant cells, possibly due in part to enhanced vascularization of ccRCC. MCPIP1 overexpression partially overcame resistance to these drugs by decreasing micrometastasis and decreasing the expression of factors involved in tumorigenesis. In tumor samples from ccRCC patients, we observed a significant increase in the level of the c-Met receptor, IRAK1 and a decrease in MCPIP1 with respect to normal kidney tissue. Our results indicate separate novel mechanisms for sunitinib and sorafenib resistance, which both lead to MCPIP1 inhibition and ccRCC progression. The presented study suggests caution in the treatment of RCC with TKIs, which may lead to the unintended outcome of tumor progression.

A metabolic reprogramming-related prognostic risk model for clear cell renal cell carcinoma: From construction to preliminary application

Metabolic reprogramming is one of the characteristics of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Although some treatments associated with the metabolic reprogramming for ccRCC have been identified, remain still lacking. In this study, we identified the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) associated with clinical traits with a total of 965 samples via DEG analysis and weighted correlation network analysis (WGCNA), screened the prognostic metabolism-related genes, and constructed the risk score prognostic models. We took the intersection of DEGs with significant difference coexpression modules and received two groups of intersection genes that were connected with metabolism via functional enrichment analysis. Then we respectively screened prognostic metabolic-related genes from the genes of the two intersection groups and constructed the risk score prognostic models. Compared with the predicted effect of clinical grade and stage for ccRCC patients, finally, we selected the model constructed with genes of ABAT, ALDH6A1, CHDH, EPHX2, ETNK2, and FBP1. The risk scores of the prognostic model were significantly related to overall survival (OS) and could serve as an independent prognostic factor. The Kaplan-Meier analysis and ROC curves revealed that the model efficiently predicts prognosis in the TCGA-KIRC cohort and the validation cohort. Then we investigated the potential underlying mechanism and sensitive drugs between high- and low-risk groups. The six key genes were significantly linked with worse OS and were downregulated in ccRCC, we confirmed the results in clinical samples. These results demonstrated the efficacy and robustness of the risk score prognostic model, based on the characteristics of metabolic reprogramming in ccRCC, and the key genes used in constructing the model also could develop into targets of molecular therapy for ccRCC.

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in the Treatment of Metastasised Renal Cell Carcinoma—Future or the Past?

Simple Summary

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the sixth most frequently diagnosed cancer in men and the tenth in women with a rising incidence. The treatment of metastasized RCC has dramatically changed in the last decade, improving the overall survival of patients significantly. In this context, cornerstones of the treatment have been tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), with Sunitinib being the preferred first-line treatment for most cases. With the introduction of immunotherapy and combination therapy, this changed recently. The current article summarizes the available literature on TKI treatment of metastasized RCC and shows the current part of TKIs in the treatment algorithm as well as its potential future role.

Abstract

Background: To review and discuss the literature on applying tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in the treatment of metastasised renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Materials and Methods: Medline, PubMed, the Cochrane database, and Embase were screened for randomised controlled trials, clinical trials, and reviews on treating renal cell carcinoma, and the role of TKI. Each substance’s results were summarised descriptively. Results: While TKI monotherapy is not currently recommended as a first-line treatment for metastasized renal cell carcinoma, TKIs are regularly applied to treat treatment-naïve patients in combination with immunotherapy. TKIs depict the first-choice alternative therapy if immunotherapy is not tolerated or inapplicable. Currently, seven different TKIs are available to treat mRCC. Conclusions: The importance of TKIs in a monotherapeutic approach has declined in the past few years. The current trend toward combination therapy for mRCC, however, includes TKIs as one significant component of treatment regimens. We found that to remain applicable to ongoing studies, both when including new substances and when testing novel combinations of established drugs. TKIs are of major importance for the treatment of renal cancer now, as well as for the foreseeable future.