Advances in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma management: From heterogeneous biology to treatment options

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) makes up nearly one quarter of all RCC subtypes, commonly impacts younger patients, and is often metastatic at presentation. Compared to clear-cell RCC (ccRCC), nccRCC typically has a worse prognosis in the metastatic setting, with overall survival durations that are ~10 months shorter. The nccRCC consists of a wide range of different histological subtypes, the majority of which are composed of papillary, chromophobe, renal medullary carcinoma, translocation RCC, collecting duct carcinoma and unclassified RCC. Most clinical trials have either excluded or only included small numbers of patients with nccRCC; owing to the lack of prospective studies focusing on this population, data on response rates and survival outcomes are lacking. NccRCC treatment is a nascent field with various therapeutic modalities and combinations under investigation, often based on data extrapolated from therapeutic studies in ccRCC. We herein review the use and outcomes of cytotoxic chemotherapy, various combination modalities of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, and targeted agents. We discuss active ongoing clinical trials for patients with nccRCC and future directions in the treatment of this rare disease. Historically, treatment for nccRCC has been adopted from the standard of care for patients with ccRCC, although these treatments are less effective in the nccRCC population. As we begin to understand the underlying biology of these tumors, clinical trials have been able to slowly accrue and include more patients with various subtypes of nccRCC. There remains much room for improvement in this area of need, but there is hope on the horizon.

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.

Treatment Selection in First-line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma-The Contemporary Treatment Paradigm in the Age of Combination Therapy: A Review

Importance

The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has evolved rapidly over the last decade. Recent combination approaches heralded by targeting immune checkpoints cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) have been followed in consecutive years by protocols targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, PD-1, and programmed death ligand-1. The differences in baseline patient characteristics, statistical plans, follow-up length, biomarker-derived approaches, and trial design make cross-trial comparisons difficult. Given the regulatory approval of a number of these regimens, the current available evidence is reviewed herein for combination first-line regimens with published randomized phase 3 trial data.

Observations

Combination approaches have transformed outcomes for patients. Durable disease control and prolonged overall survival have been achieved by both doublet immune checkpoint blockade and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor plus PD-1 blockade. Rationale for variations in trial outcome are offered, alongside approaches to navigating patient-empowered treatment selection, focusing on predictive tools, biomarkers, and the role of real-world data.

Conclusions and Relevance

Advances in the genomic, molecular, and immunologic understanding of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma have lifted the survival curves for this disease markedly in recent years. Combination approaches will remain standard of care in the first-line setting. However, thoughtful study design is needed to accurately estimate outcomes and integrate novel approaches into the treatment armamentarium.