Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Pazopanib Immediately After Discontinuation of Immunotherapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma pretreated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify evidence for use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based therapy.

METHODS

This was a PRISMA-standard systematic literature review; registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255568). Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (January 28, 2021; updated September 13, 2022) to identify publications reporting efficacy/effectiveness and safety/tolerability evidence for anti-VEGF treatment in patients with RCC who had received prior CPI therapy.

RESULTS

Of 2,639 publications screened, 48 were eligible and featured 2,759 patients treated in trials and 2,209 in real-world studies (RWS). Most patients with available data were treated with anti-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens (trials: 93 %; RWS: 100 %), most commonly cabozantinib, which accounted for 46 % of trial and 62 % of RWS patients in publications with available data. Collectively, there was consistent evidence of anti-VEGF treatment activity after prior CPI therapy. Activity was reported for all anti-VEGF regimens and regardless of prior CPI-based regimen. No new safety signals were detected for subsequent anti-VEGF therapy; no studies suggested increased immune-related adverse events associated with prior CPI therapy. The results were limited by data quality; study heterogeneity prohibited meta-analyses.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available data (most commonly for cabozantinib), anti-VEGF therapy appears to be a rational treatment choice in patients with RCC who have progressed despite prior CPI-based therapy. Results from ongoing trials of combination anti-VEGF plus CPI regimen post prior CPI therapy trials will contribute more definitive evidence.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Anticancer treatments that work by reducing levels of a substance in the body called Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor are known as anti-VEGF drugs. Reducing VEGF levels helps to reduce blood supply to tumors, which can slow the speed at which the cancer grows. Some other types of anticancer drugs that help the immune system to fight cancer cells are called checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we looked at published studies that investigated how anti-VEGF drugs work, and what side effects they cause, in people who have already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors for a type of kidney cancer called renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to summarize the available evidence to help doctors decide how best to use anti-VEGF drugs in these patients. We found 48 studies that included almost 5,000 patients. The results of the studies showed that anti-VEGF drugs have anticancer effects in people with renal cell carcinoma who had already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors. All of the VEGF-targeting drugs had anticancer effects, irrespective of what checkpoint inhibitor treatment people had received before. There were different amounts of evidence available for the different anti-VEGF drugs. The anti-VEGF cabozantinib had the largest amount of evidence. Importantly, previous checkpoint inhibitor treatment did not seem to affect the number or type of side-effects associated with anti-VEGF drugs. Results from ongoing, well-designed studies will be helpful to confirm these results. Our findings may be useful for doctors considering using anti-VEGF drugs in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have received checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

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.

Results from the INMUNOSUN-SOGUG trial: a prospective phase II study of sunitinib as a second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after immune checkpoint-based combination therapy

Background

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

•

ICI-based combinations have become the first-line treatment for mRCC.

•

We evaluated sunitinib as a second-line treatment in patients with mRCC who progressed to first-line ICI-based treatment.

•

OR was achieved by 4/21 patients (19.0%, 95% CI 2.3% to 35.8%). Median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI 3.1-8.0 months).

•

The toxicity profile of sunitinib was consistent with previously reported data. No new safety signals were detected.

•

Sunitinib is active and can be safely used as second-line therapy in patients with mRCC who progress to ICI-based regimens.

Disseminated intravascular coagulation induced by pazopanib following combination therapy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in a patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Recently, combination therapy including immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has proven to be effective as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Although the first-line combination therapies with ICI have shown clinical benefit, a number of patients require second-line treatment. We report a 60-year-old man with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who was treated with pazopanib soon after nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy. He experienced Grade 3 disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). We suspect that this was caused by an interaction between pazopanib and nivolumab even though ICI therapy was discontinued. He was treated with thrombomodulin and platelet transfusion and recovered from DIC. Treatment with pazopanib was subsequently restarted. No evidence of DIC was observed thereafter. This severe adverse reaction may have been induced by an interaction between activated proinflammatory immune cells and cytokines from an exacerbated inflammatory state and pazopanib. This report highlights the need to perform careful monitoring of patients who receive molecular targeted therapy after ICI-based immunotherapy.

Median time to progression with TKI-based therapy after failure of immuno-oncology therapy in metastatic kidney cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based therapy after previous immuno-oncology therapy (IO) failure has been addressed before. However, summary efficacy estimates have never been generated in these reports. We addressed this void.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We systematically examined TKI efficacy after IO-failure and generated weighted median progression-free survival (PFS) estimates for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib. A systematic review according to PRISMA was conducted. PubMed and abstracts were queried. Only studies proving median PFS were included. Weighted medians were computed for each TKI alternative.

RESULTS

Of 245 articles, nine eligible studies were included in the current study with 952 analysed patients. Weighted PFS medians after any previous IO-based therapy were respectively 13.7 (range from 4.6 to 24.4), 8.1 (range from 4.7 to 13.2), 8.5 (range from 4.7 to 15.2) and 6.9 months (range from 2.9 to 11.6) for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib. Specific second-line weighted PFS median was 14.8 months (range from 5.6 to 24.4), 10.1 months (range from 6.4 to 13.2), 8.7 months (range from 4.7 to 15.2) and 6.0 months (range from 2.9 to 8.0) for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib, respectively, after first-line IO.

CONCLUSION

Pazopanib results in the longest weighted median PFS, after previous IO-failure, regardless of treatment line, as well as in specific second-line, post-first-line IO failure settings. Pending novel studies, Pazopanib appears to represent the most promising treatment option after prior IO.

Clinical efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective real-world study

BACKGROUND

The clinical efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy (MT) for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have not been determined in the real word. This retrospective study of real-world data analyzed these issues in patients with advanced NSCLC and stable or responsive tumors after 4-6 cycles of first-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

We classified 158 patients into MT (34 IIIB and 37 IV stage) and non-MT (47 IIIB and 40 IV stage) groups and then compared the clinical outcomes of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The influences of maintaining chemotherapy or targeted drugs, regimens, and duration on PFS were also investigated. Prognostic factors for OS were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Among the patients, 71 received MT and 87 did not. The median PFS and OS were significantly prolonged in the MT group than non-MT group (5.6 and 14.2 vs. 2.8 and 9.8 months, respectively; both p < 0.0001). The PFS was extended when patients were maintained with targeted drugs compared with chemotherapy, > 4 cycles of chemotherapy, and targeted drugs for > 3 months (all P < 0.0001). Patients with adenocarcinoma and without distant metastasis derived a better OS benefit from MT (P = 0.041 and P = 0.037, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that female sex and MT were independent prognostic factors for extended OS (P = 0.039 and P < 0.0001, respectively). The major adverse events of MT comprised tolerable hematological toxicity and gastrointestinal reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

MT was advantageous and tolerable for patients with advanced NSCLC, especially those with adenocarcinomas without distant metastasis who were treated with targeted drugs, which was an independent prognostic factor for OS.

Second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor-therapy after immunotherapy-failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Most contemporary metastatic renal-cell carcinoma patients receive first-line immunotherapy and tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combination or immunotherapy-immunotherapy combination, as first-line standards of care. However, second-line therapy choices are less well established. To address this void, we examined existing evidence supporting second and subsequent-line treatment options after immunotherapy-based combination therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence regarding efficacy of second-line therapy after immunotherapy-based combination is mainly retrospective, except for axitinib, which is the only TKI with prospective efficacy data in this setting. Cabozantinib demonstrated excellent second-line progression-free survival (PFS) that remained in third or later line use, albeit based on small numbers of observations. Moreover, pazopanib demonstrated excellent PFS, but showed wider variability in PFS rates. Sunitinib's PFS rates appeared lower than for axitinib, cabozantinib or pazopanib. Finally, inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway appeared to offer even lower efficacy than any TKI after immunotherapy-based therapy combinations.

SUMMARY

All available contemporary evidence about TKI efficacy after immunotherapy-based therapy combinations is based on institutional studies. No major differences in efficacy for the examined TKIs after immunotherapy-based combination therapies were recorded. In general, these showed similar efficacy to their efficacy data recorded in first-line.

What is next in second- and later-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma? review of the recent literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has changed dramatically from the dominance of single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy to immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations in recent years. However, the optimal subsequent therapy remains ill-defined owing to the novelty of this approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

Treatment with TKIs after failure of single or dual ICI therapies may result in robust clinical efficacy. Nonetheless, there is a trend toward lower efficacy of TKIs after previous ICI-TKI combination therapy. Currently, tivozanib is the only drug whose third- and later-line use after failure of TKI and ICI is supported by evidence, with significantly longer progression-free survival and higher objective response rates than sorafenib. Data from retrospective studies highlight the safety and clinical activity of ICI rechallenge.

SUMMARY

Overall, the level of evidence remains low. Treatment after failure of dual ICI therapy is not well defined and may consist of any available TKI. Although first-line use of TKI is less common, strong evidence suggests cabozantinib or nivolumab as standard options in that setting. The recommendations after first-line TKI-ICI therapy failure mirror this recommendation, although the data are less robust.

Efficacy of Axitinib After Nivolumab Failure in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIM

Whether molecular-targeted therapy, particularly axitinib, is effective after failure of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the therapeutic effect of axitinib as a third-line therapy following second-line nivolumab monotherapy for mRCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from patients treated with axitinib as a third-line therapy after failure of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and second-line nivolumab monotherapy were reviewed. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate during axitinib therapy were retrospectively evaluated. Tumor responses were assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were treated with third-line axitinib after failure of prior TKI and nivolumab. During a median follow-up of 8.15 months, eight (47.1%) and three (17.6%) patients showed disease progression and died, respectively. The median PFS was 12.8 months [95% confidence interval=(CI)4.08-21.7], the 1-year PFS rate was 51.3%, and the 1-year OS rate was 71.6%. The median magnitude of maximum changes of targeted lesions from baseline was -11.9% (95%CI=-36.1-0.44%). The objective response rate and disease control rates were 29.4% (n=5) and 94.1% (n=16), respectively. Univariate analysis for PFS showed a shorter PFS in patients with non-clear cell histopathological types or those with liver metastases (p-Value<0.0001 for both).

CONCLUSION

Axitinib as a third-line therapy showed reasonable therapeutic efficacy after the failure of first-line TKI and second-line nivolumab monotherapy for mRCC. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

The need for new algorithms of treatment sequencing in clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Introduction: In recent years, the systemic treatment of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) has undergone profound innovations, offering the availability of new drugs, and raising the bar of the survival expectation in this, previously, almost-always, incurable disease. The likeliness of reaching durable response and long-term survival is still closely linked to good clinical management and smart treatment sequencing, rather than to a single systemic treatment choice.Areas covered: We review all systemic therapeutic options currently available, describe the evidence behind the current options available for mRCC patient treatment, and provide our personal cues to support clinical decisions.Expert opinion: The IMDC classification is still the only widely validated tool for the choice of primary therapy. Other elements should then be considered for selecting patients who can still receive TKI monotherapy (good-risk patients) or who deserve an 'all-at-once' approach with TKI plus ICI (poor-risk patients with the high metastatic burden and poor-prognosis organ involvement, likely not able to achieve a second chance), identifying these two 'extreme' situations and setting all the other treatment choices on the basis of several nuances. In the second- and further-line settings, ad-hoc prospective trials are awaited.

Efficacy of nivolumab versus molecular-targeted therapy as second-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Real-world data from two Japanese institutions

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of nivolumab with that of molecular-targeted therapy as a second-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma using real-world data.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients who received nivolumab or molecular-targeted therapy after the failure of first-line molecular-targeted therapy between January 2008 and December 2019 at two Japanese institutions. Progression-free survival and overall survival after the initiation of second-line therapy were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Objective response rate was assessed based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

RESULTS

Among 159 patients, 43 (27%) and 116 (73%) patients received nivolumab and molecular-targeted therapy as second-line therapy, respectively. During follow up (median 11.1 months), 129 (81%) and 98 (62%) patients had disease progression and died, respectively. Progression-free survival was comparable between the two treatments (median 5.06 vs 5.95 months, P = 0.881), whereas overall survival was significantly longer with nivolumab than with molecular-targeted therapy (not reached vs 13.0 months, P = 0.0008). Multivariate analysis further showed that nivolumab therapy was an independent favorable factor for overall survival (hazard ratio 0.33, P = 0.0007). In 151 patients with eligible radiographic data, the objective response rate was significantly higher in nivolumab than in molecular-targeted therapy (n = 14/41 [34%] vs n = 20/110 [18%], P = 0.0485).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data analysis suggests superior efficacy of nivolumab over molecular-targeted therapy as second-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Treating metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: beyond immunotherapy

First-line treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma patients with intermediate and poor-risk features consists of a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., nivolumab + ipilimumab) or immunotherapy with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) drug (e.g., axitinib). The subsequent line of therapy should be determined on the basis of previous treatments and approved drugs available, based on the results of randomized clinical trials. Unfortunately, no phase 3 trial has compared the safety and efficacy of drugs after immunotherapy; thus, drug choice is more empirical than evidence-based. As the tumor may still be anti-VEGFR drug-naïve, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for first line treatment (e.g., sunitinib or pazopanib) may be beneficial. Because this is a second-line treatment, patients could also receive axitinib, cabozantinib, or a combination of lenvatinib and everolimus. The treating physician should choose an appropriate treatment according to the patient's age, comorbidities, and tolerability of previous checkpoint inhibitors, among other considerations. Cases of patients with renal cell carcinoma refractory to checkpoint inhibitor treatment are growing, warranting a review of the activity and safety of target therapies after immunotherapy.