Phase II Study of Nivolumab and Salvage Nivolumab/Ipilimumab in Treatment-Naive Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort A)

Antiangiogenic-immune-checkpoint inhibitor combinations: lessons from phase III clinical trials

Antiangiogenic agents, generally antibodies or tyrosine-kinase inhibitors that target the VEGF-VEGFR pathway, are currently among the few combination partners clinically proven to improve the efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This benefit has been demonstrated in pivotal phase III trials across different cancer types, some with practice-changing results; however, numerous phase III trials have also had negative results. The rationale for using antiangiogenic drugs as partners for ICIs relies primarily on blocking the multiple immunosuppressive effects of VEGF and inducing several different vascular-modulating effects that can stimulate immunity, such as vascular normalization leading to increased intratumoural blood perfusion and flow, and inhibition of pro-apoptotic effects of endothelial cells on T cells, among others. Conversely, VEGF blockade can also cause changes that suppress antitumour immunity, such as increased tumour hypoxia, and reduced intratumoural ingress of co-administered ICIs. As a result, the net clinical benefits from antiangiogenic-ICI combinations will be determined by the balance between the opposing effects of VEGF signalling and its inhibition on the antitumour immune response. In this Perspective, we summarize the results from the currently completed phase III trials evaluating antiangiogenic agent-ICI combinations. We also discuss strategies to improve the efficacy of these combinations, focusing on aspects that include the deleterious functions of VEGF-VEGFR inhibition on antitumour immunity, vessel co-option as a driver of non-angiogenic tumour growth, clinical trial design, or the rationale for drug selection, dosing and scheduling.

Nivolumab + Ipilimumab as Immunotherapeutic Boost in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Studies with nivolumab, an approved therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) after platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate improved outcomes with added high-dose ipilimumab.

Objective

To assess efficacy and safety of a tailored approach using nivolumab + ipilimumab as an immunotherapeutic boost for mUC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this phase 2 nonrandomized trial, patients with mUC composed 2 cohorts. Cohort 1 received first-line or second-/third-line nivolumab with escalating doses of ipilimumab, and cohort 2 received second-/third-line nivolumab with high-dose ipilimumab. Recruitment spanned 26 sites in Germany and Austria from August 8, 2017, to February 18, 2021. All patients had a 70% or higher Karnofsky Performance Score and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1.

Interventions

All patients initiated 4 doses of 240-mg nivolumab (1× every 2 wk). Week 8 nonresponders received nivolumab + ipilimumab (1× every 3 wk). Cohort 1 received 2 doses of 3-mg/kg nivolumab + 1-mg/kg ipilimumab followed by 2 doses of 1-mg/kg nivolumab + 3-mg/kg ipilimumab if no response. Due to safety concerns, cohort 1 treatment was halted, and first-line cohort 2 treatment was not pursued. Cohort 2 received 2 to 4 doses of 1-mg/kg nivolumab + 3-mg/kg ipilimumab. Responders continued with nivolumab maintenance but could receive nivolumab + ipilimumab for later progression.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was objective response rate.

Results

The study comprised 169 patients (118 [69.8%] men; median [range] age, 68 [37-84] years): 86 in cohort 1 (42 first-line; 44 second-/third-line) and 83 in cohort 2. The median (IQR) follow-up times were 10.4 (4.2-23.5) months (first-line cohort 1), 7.5 (3.1-23.8) months (second-/third-line cohort 1), and 6.2 (3.2-22.7) months (cohort 2). Response rates to nivolumab induction were 12/42 (29%, first-line cohort 1), 10/44 (23%, second-/third-line cohort 1), and 17/83 (20%, cohort 2). Response rates to a tailored approach were 20/42 (48% [90% CI, 34%-61%], first-line cohort 1), 12/44 (27% [90% CI, 17%-40%], second-/third-line cohort 1), and 27/83 (33% [90% CI, 23%-42%], cohort 2). Three-year overall survival rates for first-line cohort 1, second-/third-line cohort 1, and cohort 2 using the Kaplan-Meier method were 32% (95% CI, 17%-49%), 19% (95% CI, 8%-33%), and 34% (95% CI, 23%-44%), respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this nonrandomized trial, although first-line cohort 1 treatment improved objective response rates, considerable progression events urge caution with this as a first-line therapy. Second-/third-line cohort 1 treatment did not improve response rates compared with nivolumab monotherapy. However, added high-dose ipilimumab may improve tumor response and survival in patients with mUC.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03219775.

Treatment-free survival outcomes from the phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort A)

BACKGROUND

As part of a partitioned survival analysis, treatment-free survival (TFS) can characterize the overall survival time patients spend between the cessation of immunotherapy and the start of subsequent therapy; both with and without toxicity. Significant TFS was reported for the nivolumab/ipilimumab arms of the CheckMate 067 and 214 trials for patients with advanced melanoma or renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), respectively, where immunotherapy was often halted for toxicity rather than a predefined treatment endpoint. We therefore sought to assess TFS in the HCRN GU16-260 trial, which was designed to reduce toxicity and cap immunotherapy duration.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from 128 patients with clear-cell aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab monotherapy for up to 2 years. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab for up to 1 year was provided to eligible patients with disease progression at any point or stable disease at 48 weeks (29% of patients). TFS was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for a time from registration to protocol therapy cessation and for a time from registration to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated from 36-month mean times. The time on or off protocol treatment with grade 3+treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was also captured.

RESULTS

At 36 months from enrollment, 68.3% of patients were alive: 96.8% of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable-risk patients and 56.6% of those with intermediate/poor-risk, respectively. The 36-month mean time on protocol therapy was 11.5 months including 0.6 months with grade 3+TRAEs (16.0 months for favorable-risk patients and 9.6 months for intermediated/poor-risk patients). The 36-month mean TFS for the whole population was 9.4 months (12.9 months including 1.5 months with grade 3+TRAEs for favorable-risk and 8.0 months including 1.0 months with grade 3+TRAEs for intermediate/poor-risk). At 36 months, 65.6% of favorable-risk patients and 27.1% of intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive and subsequent systemic treatment-free.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab monotherapy with salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in non-responders is an active treatment approach in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC and, similar to nivolumab/ipilimumab in CheckMate 214, results in substantial TFS and toxicity-free TFS. TFS was greatest in patients with favorable-risk disease, supporting the use of an immunotherapy-only regimen in this population.

A phase II trial of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of sequential treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab following progression on nivolumab monotherapy in individuals with advanced, non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

UNISoN (ANZUP1602; NCT03177239) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial that recruited adults with immunotherapy-naïve, advanced nccRCC. Participants received nivolumab 240 mg i.v. two-weekly for up to 12 months (Part 1), followed by sequential addition of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg three-weekly for four doses to nivolumab if disease progression occurred during treatment (Part 2). The primary endpoint was objective tumour response rate (OTRR) and secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and toxicity (treatment-related adverse events).

RESULTS

A total of 83 participants were eligible for Part 1, including people with papillary (37/83, 45%), chromophobe (15/83, 18%) and other nccRCC subtypes (31/83, 37%); 41 participants enrolled in Part 2. The median (range) follow-up was 22 (16-30) months. In Part 1, the OTRR was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-26.7), the median DOR was 20.7 months (95% CI 3.7-not reached) and the median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.6-7.4). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 71% of participants; 19% were grade 3 or 4. For participants who enrolled in Part 2, the OTRR was 10%; the median DOR was 13.5 months (95% CI 4.8-19.7) and the median PFS 2.6 months (95% CI 2.2-3.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of these participants; 49% had grade 3, 4 or 5. The median OS was 24 months (95% CI 16-28) from time of enrolment in Part 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab monotherapy had a modest effect overall, with a few participants experiencing a long DOR. Sequential combination immunotherapy by addition of ipilimumab in the context of disease progression to nivolumab in nccRCC is not supported by this study, with only a minority of participants benefiting from this strategy.

PD-1 inhibitor plus oncolytic vaccinia virus is a safe and effective treatment option for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Although a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is recommended as the first line treatment option for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), several immune-related adverse events (irAEs) occur, especially hepatitis. We explored the therapeutic benefits and safety profile of combining oncolytic vaccinia virus, JX-594, with a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor.

METHODS

We used early-stage and advanced-stage orthotopic murine mRCC models developed by our group. PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy or a PD-1 inhibitor combined with either JX-594 or a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor were systemically injected through the peritoneum. An immunofluorescence analysis was performed to analyze the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME). irAEs were assessed in terms of hepatitis.

RESULTS

In the early-stage mRCC model mice, the combination of JX-594 and a PD-1 inhibitor significantly decreased the primary tumor size and number of lung nodules, compared with the ICI combination, but the JX-594 and PD-1 inhibitor combination and ICI combination did not differ significantly in the advanced-stage mRCC model mice. The JX-594 and PD-1 inhibitor combination induced tumor-suppressing TIME changes in both the early- and advanced-stage mRCC models. Furthermore, mice treated with the ICI combination had significantly greater hepatic injuries than those treated with the JX-594 and PD-1 inhibitor combination which was evaluated in early-stage mRCC model.

CONCLUSIONS

The JX-594 and PD-1 inhibitor combination effectively reduced primary tumors and the metastatic burden, similar to ICI combination therapy, through dynamic remodeling of the TIME. Furthermore, hepatitis was significantly decreased in the JX-594 and PD-1 inhibitor combination group, suggesting the potential benefit of that combination for reducing ICI-induced toxicity.

Severe Dysphagia With Eosinophilic Esophagitis Pattern of Injury Related to Pembrolizumab Therapy

While immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies are effective treatments for many cancers, ICI therapies are associated with immune-related adverse events. We present a 67-year-old man with non-small cell lung carcinoma, who developed severe dysphagia with biopsies from an esophagogastroduodenoscopy showing histopathology consistent with eosinophilic esophagitis while on ICI maintenance therapy with pembrolizumab. The patient's symptoms worsened despite standard therapy. However, he had complete resolution of dysphagia symptoms once pembrolizumab was discontinued. While immune-related adverse events affecting the gastrointestinal system are increasingly recognized, ICI-associated eosinophilic esophagitis is a rare entity.

Emerging Immunotherapy Approaches for Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

The most common subtype of renal cell carcinoma is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). While localized ccRCC can be cured with surgery, metastatic disease has a poor prognosis. Recently, immunotherapy has emerged as a promising approach for advanced ccRCC. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the evolving immunotherapeutic landscape for metastatic ccRCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) like PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors have demonstrated clinical efficacy as monotherapies and in combination regimens. Combination immunotherapies pairing ICIs with antiangiogenic agents, other immunomodulators, or novel therapeutic platforms such as bispecific antibodies and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy are areas of active research. Beyond the checkpoint blockade, additional modalities including therapeutic vaccines, cytokines, and oncolytic viruses are also being explored for ccRCC. This review discusses the mechanisms, major clinical trials, challenges, and future directions for these emerging immunotherapies. While current strategies have shown promise in improving patient outcomes, continued research is critical for expanding and optimizing immunotherapy approaches for advanced ccRCC. Realizing the full potential of immunotherapy will require elucidating mechanisms of response and resistance, developing predictive biomarkers, and rationally designing combination therapeutic regimens tailored to individual patients. Advances in immunotherapy carry immense promise for transforming the management of metastatic ccRCC.

Nivolumab Switch Maintenance Therapy After Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Induction in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial by the Interdisciplinary Working Group on Renal Tumors of the German Cancer Society (NIVOSWITCH; AIO-NZK-0116ass)

BACKGROUND

The role of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) maintenance therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is undefined.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether switch maintenance therapy with nivolumab improves clinical outcomes in patients with mRCC with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sensitivity.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This open-label phase 2 trial randomized patients with a partial response or stable disease after 10-12-wk TKI induction therapy to either TKI or nivolumab maintenance. Key inclusion criteria were measurable disease, clear cell histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2, and adequate organ function.

INTERVENTION

Intravenous nivolumab 8 × 240 mg every 2 wk, followed by 480 mg every 4 wk or sunitinib 50 mg (4-2 regimen) or pazopanib 800 mg once daily orally.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES

The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were the objective response rate (ORR; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), safety (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03), and patient-reported outcomes (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index). The Kaplan-Meier method, two-sided log-rank tests, and Cox regression models were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Maintenance therapy was nivolumab for 25 patients (51.0%) and TKI for 24 (48.9%). The median age was 65 yr (range 35-79). Nine patients (18.4%) were female, 31 (63.3%) had ECOG PS of 0, and 15 (30.6%) had favorable risk. OS data are immature (17 deaths, 34.7%). The ORR was 20.0% (n = 5) for nivolumab and 52.2% (n = 12) for TKI. PFS was worse with nivolumab (hazard ratio 2.57, 95% confidence interval 1.36-4.89; p = 0.003). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 14 patients (56.0%) with nivolumab and 17 (70.8%) with TKI. A major limitation is early termination of our study.

CONCLUSIONS

TKI treatment achieved superior ORR and PFS in comparison to nivolumab maintenance therapy. Our data do not indicate a role for nivolumab switch maintenance in mRCC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Patients with metastatic kidney cancer who experienced a tumor response or disease stabilization after a short period of targeted treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor did not benefit from a switch to the immunotherapy drug nivolumab. Patients who continued their original treatment achieved better responses and a longer time without disease progression. This trial is registered on EudraCT as 2016-002170-13 and on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02959554.

Adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review of current landscape and future directions

The advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been transformative for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Their efficacy post-surgical resection remains a contentious point. Various phase 3 RCTs have assessed their potency. Amongst evaluated agents, sunitinib and pembrolizumab have demonstrated notable disease-free survival benefits. Sunitinib's potential is diminished due to absence of clear overall survival (OS) benefits and side-effect profile. Pembrolizumab shows better tolerance, conclusive OS data are forthcoming. This scenario underscores the pressing need for advanced risk stratification methods and discovery of novel biomarkers. Existing strategies, largely pre-dating TKI and ICI therapeutic era, lack sufficient accuracy in predicting relapse-risk. Our review offers a comprehensive analysis of key phase 3 RCTs, focusing on TKIs, mTOR-inhibitors, and ICIs for adjuvant RCC treatment. The intent is to shed light on the intricate landscape of RCC treatment, guiding future research directions for optimizing patient outcomes.

Treatment Landscape of Renal Cell Carcinoma

OPINION STATEMENT

The treatment landscape of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has evolved significantly over the past three decades. Active surveillance and tumor ablation are alternatives to extirpative therapy in appropriately selected patients. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging noninvasive alternative to treat primary RCC tumors. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has greatly improved the overall survival of advanced RCC, and now the ICI-based doublet (dual ICI-ICI doublet; or ICI in combination with a vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, ICI-TKI doublet) has become the standard frontline therapy. Based on unprecedented outcomes in the metastatic with ICIs, they are also being explored in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting for patients with high-risk disease. Adjuvant pembrolizumab has proven efficacy to reduce the risk of RCC recurrence after nephrectomy. Historically considered a radioresistant tumor, SBRT occupies an expanding role to treat RCC with oligometastasis or oligoprogression in combination with systemic therapy. Furthermore, SBRT is being investigated in combination with ICI-doublet in the advanced disease setting. Lastly, given the treatment paradigm is shifting to adopt ICIs at earlier disease course, the prospective studies guiding treatment sequencing in the post-ICI setting is maturing. The effort is ongoing in search of predictive biomarkers to guide optimal treatment option in RCC.

Comprehensive Systematic Review of Biomarkers in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Predictors, Prognostics, and Therapeutic Monitoring

BACKGROUND

Challenges remain in determining the most effective treatment strategies and identifying patients who would benefit from adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of biomarkers in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and their utility in prediction of treatment response, prognosis, and therapeutic monitoring in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic disease.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed database for relevant studies published between January 2017 and December 2022. The search focused on biomarkers associated with mRCC and their relationship to immune checkpoint inhibitors, targeted therapy, and VEGF inhibitors in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and metastatic settings.

RESULTS

The review identified various biomarkers with predictive, prognostic, and therapeutic monitoring potential in mRCC. The review also discussed the challenges associated with anti-angiogenic and immune-checkpoint monotherapy trials and highlighted the need for personalized therapy based on molecular signatures.

CONCLUSION

This comprehensive review provides valuable insights into the landscape of biomarkers in mRCC and their potential applications in prediction of treatment response, prognosis, and therapeutic monitoring. The findings underscore the importance of incorporating biomarker assessment into clinical practice to guide treatment decisions and improve patient outcomes in mRCC.

Managing Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma after Progression on Immunotherapy

Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) lacks standardization, with limited evidence from small trials and retrospective data. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibition through tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is the most widely adopted second-line treatment. Encouraging results have been seen with VEGFR-TKIs in the second-line after exposure to an ICI-based combination, achieving a response rate of 30%, and 75% of patients achieving disease control. Rechallenge with ICI alone seems safe but has limited clinical benefit. Promising regimens with combination therapies and novel drugs are being evaluated in phase 3 trials.

The Role of the Pathologist in Renal Cell Carcinoma Management

Recent advances in our understanding of the molecular alterations underlying different types of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), as well as the implementation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of patients with advanced disease, have significantly expanded the role of pathologists in the management of RCC patients and in the identification of predictive biomarkers that can guide patient treatment. In this chapter, we examine pathologists' evolving role in patient care and the development of precision medicine strategies for RCC.

Managing First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Favorable-Risk Disease

Defining metastatic renal-cell carcinoma as a favorable risk depends on clinical risk-stratification tools such as the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium or the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center scores. The favorable-risk disease tends to have better prognosis and survival compared with disease stratified as either intermediate or poor risk and can be attributed in part to an indolent tumor biology. Several phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival and objective response rate, but not overall survival benefit with combinations of immunotherapy and vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors compared with sunitinib in favorable-risk disease.

Emerging resistance vs. losing response to immune check point inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma: two differing phenomena

The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and has dramatically improved the outcomes of patients. The use of monotherapy or combinations of ICIs targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4, as well as the addition of ICIs with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, has significantly enhanced the overall survival of mRCC patients. Despite these promising results, there remains a subset of patients who either do not respond to treatment (primary resistance) or develop resistance to therapy over time (acquired resistance). Understanding the mechanisms underlying the development of resistance to ICI treatment is crucial in the management of mRCC, as they can be used to identify new targets for innovative therapeutic strategies. Currently, there is an unmet need to develop new predictive and prognostic biomarkers that can aid in the development of personalized treatment options for mRCC patients. In this review, we summarize several mechanisms of ICI resistance in RCC, including alterations in tumor microenvironment, upregulation of alternative immune checkpoint pathways, and genetic and epigenetic changes. Additionally, we highlight potential strategies that can be used to overcome resistance, such as combination therapy, targeted therapy, and immune modulation.

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.

Pre-treatment metastatic growth rate is associated with clinical outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the response rate is still limited, and it is urgent to pursue novel and concise markers of responses to ICIs that allow the determination of clinical benefits. Recently, it was reported that the metastatic growth rate (MGR) is an independent factor associated with clinical outcome for anticancer therapy in some types of cancer.

METHODS

We investigated pre-treatment MGR before starting nivolumab for mRCC patients between September 2016 to October 2019. In addition, we examined clinicopathological factors including MGR and analyzed the correlation between pre-treatment MGR and clinical efficacy of nivolumab.

RESULTS

Of all patients, the median age was 63 years (range, 42-81), and the median observation period was 13.6 months (range, 1.7-40.3). Twenty-three patients and sixteen patients were classified as the low and the high MGR group, respectively, with the cutoff value of 2.2 mm/month. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly better in patients in the low MGR group (p = 0.005 and p = 0.01). Importantly, in multivariate analysis, only the high MGR was significantly associated with a decrease of PFS (Hazard ratio (HR): 2.69, p = 0.03) and OS (HR: 5.27, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-treatment MGR may serve as the simple and valid indicator obtained from imaging studies, and the prominent surrogate marker associated with OS and PFS in mRCC patients treated with nivolumab.

Kidney Cancer Updates from the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting in Chicago

This report highlights key research from the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, with a focus on clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) across clinical trials and translational studies. Essential updates in the metastatic ccRCC clinical space encompass results from the CONTACT-03 study, which evaluated an immunotherapy containing regimen for patients who progressed on an initial immunotherapy containing regimen, alongside updated results from the KEYNOTE-426 and CLEAR trials. In the metastatic nccRCC domain, we review clinical trials of combination immunotherapies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Additionally, we highlight exciting early-phase studies exploring novel targets in RCC and engineered T-cell methodologies. Finally, we summarize notable efforts in translational research, emphasizing biomarker investigations to determine predictors of immunotherapy response, the application of molecular classifiers in RCC, and the relationship between the microbiome and RCC. There were many important RCC related abstracts presented at this year's ASCO conference, attesting to the continued momentum of research in the field. All conference materials, including abstracts and presentations, can be accessed online through the conference website.

Triplet Strategies in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Worthy Option in the First-Line Setting?

Significant strides have been made in the frontline treatment of patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). There are multiple standard-of-care doublet regimens consisting of either the combined dual immune checkpoint inhibitors, ipilimumab and nivolumab, or combinations of a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor and an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Currently, there is an emergence of clinical trials examining triplet combinations. In COSMIC-313, a randomized phase III trial for patients with untreated advanced ccRCC, the triplet combination of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and cabozantinib was compared with a contemporary control arm of ipilimumab and nivolumab. While patients receiving the triplet regimen demonstrated improved progression-free survival, these patients also experienced greater toxicity and the overall survival data are still maturing. In this article, we discuss the role of doublet therapy as standard of care, the current data available for the promise of triplet therapy, the rationale to continue pursuing trials with triplet combinations, and factors for clinicians and patients to consider when choosing among frontline treatments. We present ongoing trials with an adaptive design that may serve as alternative methods for escalating from doublet to triplet regimens in the frontline setting and explore clinical factors and emerging predictive biomarkers (both baseline and dynamic) that may guide future trial design and frontline treatment for patients with advanced ccRCC.

Navigating the Current Landscape of Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Review of the Literature

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) is an entity comprised of a heterogeneous constellation of RCC subtypes. Genomic profiling has broadened our understanding of molecular pathogenic mechanisms unique to individual nccRCC subtypes. To date, clinical trials evaluating the use of immunotherapies and targeted therapies have predominantly been conducted in patients with clear cell histology. A comprehensive review of the literature has been undertaken in order to describe molecular pathogenic mechanisms pertaining to each nccRCC subtype, and concisely summarise findings from therapeutic trials conducted in the nccRCC space.

Impact of Precision Medicine in Oncology: Immuno-oncology

ABSTRACT

Cancer treatment has dramatically changed over the last decade with the development of immunotherapy. Therapies including immune cytokines, immune checkpoint inhibition, intratumoral therapies, and cellular therapies are already widely used in the oncology clinic. Active development continues in these areas and in the development of vaccines, bispecific therapies, and more refined cellular therapies. In this review, we will examine the role that immune therapy has in cancer treatment and explore areas of future development.

Long-term outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment of patients with advanced sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) provided efficacy benefits over sunitinib (SUN) in patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC at 42 months minimum follow-up in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, we report clinical efficacy of NIVO+IPI in sRCC after a minimum follow-up of 5 years.

METHODS

In CheckMate 214, patients with clear cell advanced RCC were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses), then NIVO 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks versus SUN 50 mg once daily (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Randomized patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histological classification per local pathology report. Overall survival (OS), as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1, were evaluated in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk sRCC patients and by baseline tumor PD-L1 expression level (≥1% vs <1%). Safety outcomes are reported using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In total, 139 patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC were identified (NIVO+IPI, n=74; SUN, n=65). At 5 years minimum follow-up, more patients remained on treatment with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (12% vs zero). Efficacy benefits with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were maintained with median OS of 48.6 vs 14.2 months (HR 0.46), median PFS of 26.5 vs 5.5 months (HR 0.50), and ORR 60.8% vs 23.1%. In addition, median duration of response was longer (not reached vs 25.1 months), and more patients had complete responses (23.0% vs 6.2%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively. Efficacy was better with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression, but the magnitude of OS, PFS, and ORR benefits with NIVO+IPI was greater for sRCC patients with tumor PD-L1 ≥1%. No new safety signals emerged in either arm with longer follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC, NIVO+IPI maintained long-term survival benefits and demonstrated durable and deep responses over SUN at minimum follow-up of 5 years, supporting NIVO+IPI as a preferred first-line therapy in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02231749.

Immune-based treatment re-challenge in renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as a front-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has significantly improved patient’ outcome. However, little is known about the efficacy or lack thereof of immunotherapy after prior use of anti-PD1/PD-L1 or/and anti-CTLA monoclonal antibodies.

Methods

Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were comprehensively searched from inception to July 2022. Objective response rates (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and ≥ grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were assessed in the meta-analysis, along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and publication bias.

Results

Ten studies which contained a total of 500 patients were included. The pooled ORR was 19% (95% CI: 10, 31), and PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.1, 7.8). There were ≥ grade 3 AEs noted in 25% of patients (95% CI: 14, 37).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis on different second-line ICI-containing therapies in ICI-pretreated mRCC patients supports a modest efficacy and tolerable toxicity.

Soluble PD-L1 as a Prognostic Factor for Immunotherapy Treatment in Solid Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blocking the Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) axis has demonstrated great efficacy in cancer immunotherapy treatment and remains the central modality of immune targeting. To support the rational and tailored use of these drugs, it is important to identify reliable biomarkers related to survival. The role of the soluble form of the PD-L1 (sPD-L1) as a prognostic biomarker related to survival in solid cancer patients treated with immunotherapy has not yet been consistently evaluated. A systematic literature search of original articles in PubMed, MEDLINE and Scopus was conducted. Studies reporting hazard ratios (HRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) or Kaplan−Meier curves or individual patient data for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) associated with baseline levels of sPD-L1 in cancer patients undergoing immunotherapy treatment were considered eligible. Twelve studies involving 1076 patients and different tumor types treated with immunotherapy were included in the analysis. High blood levels of sPD-L1 correlated with poorer OS and PFS in cancer patients treated with immunotherapy (HR = 1.49, 95%CI: 1.15, 1.93, p < 0.01, I2 = 77% for OS; HR = 1.59, 95%CI: 1.20, 2.12, p < 0.01, I2 = 82% for PFS). A subgroup analysis highlighted that high levels of sPD-L1 were associated with worse survival in patients affected by NSCLC (HR = 1.81 95%CI: 1.09−3.00, p = 0.02, I2 = 83% for OS; HR = 2.18, 95%CI: 1.27−3.76, p < 0.01, I2 = 88% for PFS). An HR > 1 indicated that patients with low levels of sPD-L1 have the highest rates of OS/PFS. In this meta-analysis, we clarified the role of sPD-L1 in different solid cancers treated exclusively with Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). sPD-L1 could represent a non-invasive biomarker that is easily dosable in the blood of patients. The pooled data from the selected studies showed that a high circulating concentration of sPD-L1 in cancer patients correlates with worse survival, suggesting that it may be a helpful prognostic biomarker for the selection of cancer patients before immunotherapy, thus improving the efficacy of ICIs and avoiding unnecessary treatment.

FRACTION-RCC: nivolumab plus ipilimumab for advanced renal cell carcinoma after progression on immuno-oncology therapy

BACKGROUND

The role and sequencing of combination immuno-oncology (IO) therapy following progression on or after first-line IO therapy has not been well-established. The Fast Real-time Assessment of Combination Therapies in Immuno-ONcology (FRACTION) program is an open-label, phase 2 platform trial designed to evaluate multiple IO combinations in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) who progressed during or after prior IO therapy. Here, we describe the results for patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For enrollment in track 2 (reported here), patients with histologically confirmed clear cell aRCC, Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and life expectancy ≥3 months who had previously progressed after IO (anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1), anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4)) therapy were eligible. Previous treatment with anti-CTLA-4 therapy plus anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy precluded eligibility for enrollment in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm. Patients were treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks for up to 2 years or until progression, toxicity, or protocol-specified discontinuation. The primary outcome measures were objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were safety and tolerability up to 2 years. Overall survival (OS) was a tertiary/exploratory endpoint. Overall, 46 patients were included with a median follow-up of 33.8 months. The ORR was 17.4% (95% CI, 7.8 to 31.4) with eight (17.4%) patients achieving partial response. Stable disease was achieved in 19 (41.3%) patients, while 14 (30.4%) had progressive disease. Median DOR (range) was 16.4 (2.1+ to 27.0+) months. The PFS rate at 24 weeks was 43.2%, and median OS was 23.8 (95% CI, 13.2 to not reached) months. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated adverse events were reported in seven (15.2%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Patients with aRCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab may derive durable clinical benefit after progression on previous IO therapies, including heavily pretreated patients, with a manageable safety profile that was consistent with previously published safety outcomes. These outcomes contribute to the knowledge of optimal sequencing of IO therapies for patients with aRCC with high unmet needs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02996110.

Treatment of Refractory Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

First-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) rapidly shifted in recent years with the advent of combination therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) doublets and combinations of an ICI with a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Despite improvements in overall survival and many durable responses, there exists a significant number of patients who fail to respond to these agents, and many patients eventually progress. Given the rapid changes in the front-line setting, it is essential to understand treatment options in refractory mRCC. Here, we review the evidence behind current options for later-line therapies, often involving additional VEGFR-TKIs alone or in combination with mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) targeted agents, as well as situations where consideration of immunotherapy rechallenge may be appropriate. Additionally, we describe ongoing clinical trials examining concurrent ICI and TKI in the refractory setting, as well as those studying novel agents, such as targeted drug-antibody conjugates and hypoxia inducible factor 2α (HIF-2α) inhibitors. Finally, we review considerations for non-clear cell histologies in the refractory setting and mechanisms of resistance in mRCC.

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

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

Knowledge mapping and research hotspots of immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma: A text-mining study from 2002 to 2021

Background

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most lethal urological malignancies, and because early-stage RCC is asymptomatic, many patients present metastatic diseases at first diagnosis. With the development of immunotherapy, the treatment of RCC has entered a new stage and has made a series of progress. This study mainly outlines the knowledge map and detects the potential research hotspots by using bibliometric analysis.

Methods

Publications concerning RCC immunotherapy from 2002 to 2021 in the Web of Science Core Collection were collected. Visualization and statistical analysis were mainly performed by freeware tools VOSviewer, CiteSpace, R software, and Microsoft Office Excel 2019.

Results

A total of 3,432 papers were collected in this study, and the annual number of papers and citations showed a steady growth trend. The United States is the leading country with the most high-quality publications and is also the country with the most international cooperation. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center is the most productive organization. The Journal of Clinical Oncology is the highest co-cited journal, and Brian I. Rini is both the most prolific author and the author with the largest centrality. The current research hotspots may be focused on “immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs),” “PD-1,” and “mammalian target of rapamycin.”

Conclusion

Immunotherapy has a bright future in the field of RCC treatment, among which ICIs are one of the most important research hotspots. The main future research directions of ICI-based immunotherapy may focus on combination therapy, ICI monotherapy, and the development of new predictive biomarkers.