A Living, Interactive Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of First-line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

The oncogene MYBL2 promotes the malignant phenotype and suppresses apoptosis through hedgehog signaling pathway in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Multiple cancers have been associated with MYB-related protein B (MYBL2), its involvement in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) has yet to be demonstrated. Our study revealed a significant upregulation of MYBL2 in ccRCC tissues, correlating with clinicopathological features and patient prognosis. Increased MYBL2 expression promoted cell proliferation and suppressed apoptosis. RNA-seq analysis unveiled a reduction in smoothened (SMO) expression upon MYBL2 silencing. However, luciferase and chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays demonstrated MYBL2's positive regulation of SMO expression by directly targeting the SMO promoter. Reintroduction of SMO expression in MYBL2-knocked down cells partially restored cell proliferation and mitigated apoptosis inhibition. Overall, these results indicate that MYBL2 facilitates ccRCC progression by enhancing SMO expression, suggesting its potential as an intriguing drug target for ccRCC therapy.

Integrating large language models in systematic reviews: a framework and case study using ROBINS-I for risk of bias assessment

Large language models (LLMs) may facilitate and expedite systematic reviews, although the approach to integrate LLMs in the review process is unclear. This study evaluates GPT-4 agreement with human reviewers in assessing the risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and proposes a framework for integrating LLMs into systematic reviews. The case study demonstrated that raw per cent agreement was the highest for the ROBINS-I domain of 'Classification of Intervention'. Kendall agreement coefficient was highest for the domains of 'Participant Selection', 'Missing Data' and 'Measurement of Outcomes', suggesting moderate agreement in these domains. Raw agreement about the overall risk of bias across domains was 61% (Kendall coefficient=0.35). The proposed framework for integrating LLMs into systematic reviews consists of four domains: rationale for LLM use, protocol (task definition, model selection, prompt engineering, data entry methods, human role and success metrics), execution (iterative revisions to the protocol) and reporting. We identify five basic task types relevant to systematic reviews: selection, extraction, judgement, analysis and narration. Considering the agreement level with a human reviewer in the case study, pairing artificial intelligence with an independent human reviewer remains required.

Adverse Events of Cabozantinib Plus Nivolumab Versus Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab

INTRODUCTION

Recently, many agents and combinations for metastatic and advanced renal cell carcinoma have been approved. This study aims to highlight the comprehensive differences in adverse events (AEs) between cabozantinib (CAB) plus nivolumab (NIVO) and ipilimumab (IPI) plus NIVO based on a real-world big dataset.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We downloaded AE datasets of IPI + NIVO and CAB + NIVO from the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database. We used the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities to treat each AE as a preferred term and grouped it into the System Organ Class (SOC). We performed logistic regression analyses to compare IPI + NIVO and CAB + NIVO.

RESULTS

The incidence rates of 7 types of toxicities were higher for CAB + NIVO than for IPI + NIVO. On the other hand, the incidence rates of 3 types of toxicities were higher for IPI + NIVO than for CAB + NIVO. Serious AEs were higher in patients receiving IPI + NIVO.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that both combination therapies presented a disproportionate distribution of toxicities in several SOC. These findings may help clinicians select suitable therapy for the individual and improve the safety profile in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving NIVO + IPI and NIVO + CAB in a real-world setting.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab as an Adjuvant Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma Post-nephrectomy in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Pembrolizumab was recently approved as an adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), based on prolonged disease-free survival compared to placebo in the phase III KEYNOTE-564 trial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab as monotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of RCC post-nephrectomy, from a US health sector perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A Markov model with 4 health states (disease-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, and death) was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus routine surveillance or sunitinib. Transition probabilities were estimated using patient-level KEYNOTE-564 data (cutoff: June 14, 2021), a retrospective study, and published literature. Costs of adjuvant and subsequent treatments, adverse events, disease management, and terminal care were estimated in 2022 US$. Utilities were based on EQ-5D-5L data collected in KEYNOTE-564. Outcomes included costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). Robustness was assessed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Total cost per patient was $549,353 for pembrolizumab, $505,094 for routine surveillance, and $602,065 for sunitinib. Over a lifetime, pembrolizumab provided gains of 0.96 QALYs (1.00 LYs) compared to routine surveillance, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,327/QALY. Pembrolizumab dominated sunitinib with 0.89 QALYs (0.91 LYs) gained while saving costs. At a $150,000/QALY threshold, pembrolizumab was cost-effective versus both routine surveillance and sunitinib in 84.2% of probabilistic simulations.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab is projected to be cost-effective as an adjuvant RCC treatment versus routine surveillance or sunitinib based on a typical willingness-to-pay threshold.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Challenges in conducting fractional polynomial and standard parametric network meta-analyses of immune checkpoint inhibitors for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma

Aim: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) increasingly feature time-varying hazards to account for non-proportional hazards between different drug classes. This paper outlines an algorithm for selecting clinically plausible fractional polynomial NMA models. Methods: The NMA of four immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and one TKI therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) served as case study. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) data were reconstructed from the literature, 46 models were fitted. The algorithm entailed a-priori face validity criteria for survival and hazards, based on clinical expert input, and predictive accuracy against trial data. Selected models were compared with statistically best-fitting models. Results: Three valid PFS and two OS models were identified. All models overestimated PFS, the OS model featured crossing ICI + TKI versus TKI curves as per expert opinion. Conventionally selected models showed implausible survival. Conclusion: The selection algorithm considering face validity, predictive accuracy, and expert opinion improved the clinical plausibility of first-line RCC survival models.

Non-coding RNAs in renal cell carcinoma: Implications for drug resistance

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents a malignant tumor of the urinary system. Individuals with early-stage RCC could be cured by surgical treatment, but a considerable number of cases of advanced RCC progress to drug resistance. Recently, numerous reports have demonstrated that a variety of non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) contribute to tumor occurrence and development. ncRNAs can act as oncogenic or tumor suppressor genes to regulate proliferation, migration, drug resistance and other processes in RCC cells through a variety of signaling pathways. Considering the lack of treatment options for advanced RCC after drug resistance, ncRNAs may be a good choice as biomarkers of drug resistance in RCC and targets to overcome drug resistance. In this review, we discussed the effects of ncRNAs on drug resistance in RCC and the great potential of ncRNAs as a biomarker of or a new therapeutic method in RCC.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.» A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.» Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of the First Line Treatment Options For Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in India

PURPOSE

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as sunitinib and pazopanib are the mainstay of treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in India. However, pembrolizumab and nivolumab have shown significant improvement in the median progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with mRCC. In this study, we aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the first-line treatment options for the patients with mRCC in India.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was used to measure the lifetime costs and health outcomes associated with sunitinib, pazopanib, pembrolizumab/lenvatinib, and nivolumab/ipilimumab among patients with first-line mRCC. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and assessed for cost-effectiveness using a willingness to pay threshold of one-time per capita gross-domestic product of India. The parameter uncertainty was analyzed using the probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

We estimated the total lifetime cost per patient of ₹ 0.27 million ($3,706 US dollars [USD]), ₹ 0.35 million ($4,716 USD), ₹ 9.7 million ($131,858 USD), and ₹ 6.7 million ($90,481 USD) for the sunitinib, pazopanib, pembrolizumab/lenvatinib, and nivolumab/ipilimumab arms, respectively. Similarly, the mean QALYs lived per patient were 1.91, 1.86, 2.75, and 1.97, respectively. Sunitinib incurs an average cost of ₹ 143,269 ($1,939 USD) per QALY lived. Therefore, sunitinib at current reimbursement rates (₹ 10,000 per cycle) has a 94.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of 1-time per capita gross-domestic product (₹ 168,300) in the Indian context.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the current inclusion of sunitinib under India's publicly financed health insurance scheme.

Single-cell RNA-seq integrated with multi-omics reveals SERPINE2 as a target for metastasis in advanced renal cell carcinoma

Tumor growth, metastasis and therapeutic response are believed to be regulated by the tumor and its microenvironment (TME) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the mechanisms underlying genomic, transcriptomic and epigenetic alternations in RCC progression have not been completely defined. In this study, single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) data were obtained from eight tissue samples of RCC patients, including two matched pairs of primary and metastatic sites (lymph nodes), along with Hi-C, transposable accessible chromatin by high-throughput (ATAC-seq) and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) between RCC (Caki-1) and human renal tubular epithelial cell line (HK-2). The identified target was verified in clinical tissue samples (microarray of 407 RCC patients, TMA-30 and TMA-2020), whose function was further validated by in vitro and in vivo experiments through knockdown or overexpression. We profiled transcriptomes of 30514 malignant cells, and 14762 non-malignant cells. Comprehensive multi-omics analysis revealed that malignant cells and TME played a key role in RCC. The expression programs of stromal cells and immune cells were consistent among the samples, whereas malignant cells expressed distinct programs associated with hypoxia, cell cycle, epithelial differentiation, and two different metastasis patterns. Comparison of the hierarchical structure showed that SERPINE2 was related to these NNMF expression programs, and at the same time targeted the switched compartment. SERPINE2 was highly expressed in RCC tissues and lowly expressed in para-tumor tissues or HK-2 cell line. SERPINE2 knockdown markedly suppressed RCC cell growth and invasion, while SERPINE2 overexpression dramatically promoted RCC cell metastasis both in vitro and in vivo. In addition, SERPINE2 could activate the epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathway. The above findings demonstrated that the role of distinct expression patterns of malignant cells and TME played a distinct role in RCC progression. SERPINE2 was identified as a potential therapeutic target for inhibiting metastasis in advanced RCC.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Comparing efficacy and safety of first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A Bayesian network meta-regression analysis

Background

This Bayesian network meta-regression analysis provides a head-to-head comparison of first-line therapeutic immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) combinations for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) using median follow-up time as covariate.

Methods

We searched Six databases for a comprehensive analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Comparing progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of different interventions at the same time node by Bayesian network meta-analysis. Bayesian network meta-regression analysis was performed on objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs) (grade ≥ 3) and the hazard ratios (HR) associated with PFS and OS, with the median follow-up time as the covariate.

Results

Eventually a total of 22 RCTs reporting 11,090 patients with 19 interventions. Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab (LenPem) shows dominance of PFS, and Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib (PemAxi) shows superiority in OS at each time point. After meta-regression analysis, for HRs of PFS, LenPem shows advantages; for HRs of OS, PemAxi shows superiority; For ORR, LenPem provides better results. For AEs (grade ≥ 3), Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab (AtezoBev) is better.

Conclusion

Considering the lower toxicity and the higher quality of life, PemAxi should be recommended as the optimal therapy in treating mRCC.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD4202236775.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus pembrolizumab and axitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma with intermediate or poor prognostic risk: a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective

OBJECTIVE

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (PEM + AXI) have demonstrated significant clinical benefits as first-line (1 L) treatments for intermediate/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of NIVO + IPI versus PEM + AXI from a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective, utilizing a novel approach to estimate comparative efficacy between the treatments.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model (progression-free, progressed, and death) was developed to estimate costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) over a 40-year time horizon. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons between NIVO + IPI and PEM + AXI, clinical data for NIVO + IPI was obtained from CheckMate 214 (NCT02231749) and for PEM + AXI from KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331). A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted to account for the imbalance of treatment effect modifiers between the trials. Patient characteristics, resource use, health state utilities, and costs were based on Brazilian-specific sources. Costs and health outcomes were both discounted by 5% annually in line with Brazilian guidelines. The robustness of the results was evaluated through extensive sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

When comparing the matched versus unmatched OS, PFS, and TTD curves there was no noteworthy difference. NIVO + IPI was associated with cost savings (R$ 350,232), higher LYs (5.54 vs. 4.61), and QALYs (4.74 vs. 3.76) versus PEM + AXI, resulting in NIVO + IPI dominating PEM + AXI. Key model drivers were the treatment duration for PEM, NIVO, and AXI. NIVO + IPI remained dominant in all scenario analyses, which indicated that model results were robust to alternative modelling inputs or assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis shows that NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and potentially cost-saving 1 L treatment option when compared with PEM + AXI for intermediate/poor-risk a RCC patients in the Brazilian private healthcare system.

Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Spinal Metastases: Which Factors Matter to the Overall Survival? A 10-Year Experience of a High-Volume Tumor Spine Center

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) usually spreads in the spinal region causing instability or spinal cord compression leading to neurological deficits. Therefore, surgical treatment is required for improving the outcome of patients. The aim of this study is to identify which prognostic factors could affect overall survival in patients affected by ccRCC. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with ccRCC spinal metastases, surgically treated from November 2009 to April 2019. Demographic and clinical data were collected. The Kaplan−Meier method was used to estimate overall survival, and the log-rank test was used to evaluate differences in survival among potentially prognostic factors. Results: A total of 69 patients were surgically treated and followed up for a median period of 65 months. The average age at the time of surgery was 62.6 years old. The median overall survival (OS) was 34.7 months (95% CI 20.8−51.9) and 5-year OS was 31.2% (95% CI 19.2−44.1). A high Tokuhashi score (p = 0.0217), the presence of visceral metastases (p < 0.001), other bone metastases (p = 0.02012) and the kind of surgical treatment (p = 0.0395) are the main prognostic factors that influence the OS. Moreover, 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was analyzed: the median PFS was 53.1 months and the % 3-year PFS was 62.9% (45.2−76.3). In the multivariate analysis, only pre-operative radiation therapy had a significant impact on 3-year PFS (95% CI 0.929−12.994, p = 0.0643). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that the absence of visceral metastases and an aggressive surgery as en-bloc, when feasible, could prolong the survival rate and improve quality of life for patients.

Development of a Website for a Living Network Meta-analysis of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments Using a User-Centered Design: Multimethod Study

BACKGROUND

A rapid expansion of systemic immunological treatment options for atopic dermatitis (AD) has created a need for clinically relevant and understandable comparative efficacy and safety information for patients and clinicians. Given the scarcity of head-to-head trials, network meta-analysis (NMA) is an alternative way to enable robust comparisons among treatment options; however, NMA results are often complex and difficult to directly implement in shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to develop a website that effectively presents the results of a living systematic review and NMA on AD treatments to patient and clinician users.

METHODS

We conducted a multimethod study using iterative feedback from adults with AD, adult caregivers of children with AD, dermatologists, and allergists within a user-centered design framework. We used questionnaires followed by workshops among patients and clinicians to develop and improve the website interface. Usability testing was done with a caregiver of a patient with eczema.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were completed by 31 adults with AD or caregivers and 94 clinicians. Patients and caregivers felt it was very important to know about new treatments (20/31, 65%). Clinicians felt the lack of evidence-based comparisons between treatments was a barrier to care (55/93, 59%). "Avoiding dangerous side effects" was ranked as the most important priority for patients (weighted ranking 5.2/7, with higher ranking being more important), and "improving patients' overall symptoms" was the most important priority for clinicians (weighted ranking 5.0/6). A total of 4 patients and 7 clinicians participated in workshops; they appreciated visualizations of the NMA results and found the website valuable for comparing different treatments. The patients suggested changes to simplify the interface and clarify terminology related to comparative efficacy. The user in the usability testing found the website intuitive to navigate.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a website, "eczematherapies.com," with a user-centered design approach. Visualizations of NMA results enable users to compare treatments as part of their shared decision-making process.

The controversial role and therapeutic development of the m6A demethylase FTO in renal cell carcinoma

Fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) protein, the first m⁶A demethylase identified in 2011, regulates multiple aspects of RNA biology including splicing, localization, stability, and translation. Accumulating data show that FTO is involved in numerous physiological processes and is implicated in multiple cancers including renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the exact role of FTO in RCC remains controversial. Some studies demonstrated that decreased FTO expression was associated with aggressive clinical features and shorter overall survival in clear cell RCC (ccRCC) patients, while others found that FTO inhibition selectively reduced the growth and survival of VHL-deficient ccRCC cells in vitro and in vivo. Here, we review the evidence supporting either a promoting or suppressive role of FTO in kidney cancers, the mechanisms of action of FTO, and recent progress in developing FTO inhibitors.

Integrated multi-omics analyses reveal that BCAM is associated with epigenetic modification and tumor microenvironment subtypes of clear cell renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common and highly heterogeneous subtype of renal cell carcinoma. Dysregulated basal cell adhesion molecule (BCAM) gene is associated with poor prognosis in various cancers. However, the dysregulated functions and related multi-omics features of BCAM in ccRCC stay unclear.

RESULTS

BCAM expression was aberrantly downregulated in ccRCC and correlated with adverse pathological parameters and poor prognosis. Low mRNA expression of BCAM was remarkably associated with its CpG methylation levels and BAP1 mutation status. Patients with lower-expressed BCAM concomitant with BAP1 mutation had a worse prognosis. Using RNA-seq data from The cancer genome atlas, we found that compared to the BCAM-high expression subgroup, ccRCC patients in the BCAM-low expression subgroup had significantly higher levels of immune infiltration, higher immune checkpoint expression levels and lower TIDE (tumor immune dysfunction and exclusion) score, indicating potential better response to immunotherapy. Data from the Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium further validated the association between low BCAM expression and CD8 + inflamed phenotype at protein level. Meanwhile, our results suggested that the angiogenesis-related pathways were enriched in the BCAM-high expression subgroup. More importantly, according to the data from the GDSC database, we revealed that the BCAM-high expression subgroup should be more sensitive to anti-angiogenetic therapies, including sorafenib, pazopanib and axitinib.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that BCAM could serve as a biomarker distinguishing different tumor microenvironment phenotypes, predicting prognosis and helping therapeutic decision-making for patients with ccRCC.

A Profile of Avelumab Plus Axitinib in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma

Until recently, the approved first-line treatment for metastatic RCC (mRCC) consisted of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR) monotherapy. The landscape of first-line treatment has been transformed in the last few years with the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or VEGFR TKI plus ICI combinations. This article focuses on the profile of one of these ICI plus VEGFR TKI combination, avelumab plus axitinib. We detail the characteristics of each drug separately, and then we explore the rationale for their association, its efficacy and the resulting toxicity. Finally, we examine the factors associated with avelumab plus axitinib outcomes, and their impact on therapeutic strategy.

Construction and validation of an autophagy-related long non-coding RNA signature to predict the prognosis of kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma

To identify the autophagy-related long non-coding RNAs (ARlncRNAs) associated with the prognosis of kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma (KIRP), thereby establishing a clinical prognostic model. The gene expression matrix and clinical survival information of patients with KIRP were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas database, and were divided into the training and testing groups. ARlncRNAs associated with the KIRP prognosis were analyzed by univariate, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO(, and multivariate Cox regression to construct a signature. We combined clinical factors associated with the prognosis with ARlncRNAs to establish a prognostic model of patients with KIRP. A nomogram was established to predict 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival of patients with KIRP. Besides, we built the lncRNA-messenger RNA co-expression network and used Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes and Gene Set Enrichment Analysis to detect the biological functions of ARlncRNAs. LEF1-AS1, CU634019.6, C2orf48, AC027228.2, and AC107464.3 were identified. A prognosis-related ARlncRNAs signature was constructed in the training group and validated in the testing group. Patients with KIRP with a low risk score had significantly longer survival time than those with a high risk score. The risk score significantly affected the prognosis of patients, thereby being used for modeling. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year overall survival were 0.80, 0.78, and 0.84 in the training group, respectively. The signature had high concordance index and good accuracy in predicting the prognosis, which were confirmed by the nomogram. The prognosis-related ARlncRNAs signature we identified had a more accurate prediction for the prognosis of patients with KIRP.

Comprehensive assessments of immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapies as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Over the last decade, there have been substantial progress in the field of systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Through the transition from treatment with cytokines to molecular-targeted agents, and currently to immuno-oncology drugs, the prognostic outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma have been markedly improved. In particular, based on the promising outcomes of recently conducted pivotal randomized clinical trials, immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapy by either dual immune checkpoint inhibition or combined inhibition of an immune checkpoint and tyrosine kinase, is currently regarded as a standard of care for treatment-naïve advanced renal cell carcinoma patients. However, insufficient data are available with respect to the selection of optimal systemic therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma in the first-line setting due to the lack of a head-to-head comparison between approved immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapies. In this review, therefore, we summarize interesting findings associated with first-line combination therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma obtained from both randomized clinical trials and real-world clinical practices, in order to present useful guidance to help make treatment decisions for patients with treatment-naïve advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Approaches to First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Four immuno-oncology (IO)-based combinations have demonstrated overall survival benefit as frontline treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Choosing among the available combinations depends on treating physician's interpretation of existing data without level I evidence to inform choice of therapy. Landmark trials of mccRCC are reviewed and perspective on treatment options is provided.

RECENT FINDINGS

The four IO-based combinations reviewed are ipilimumab/nivolumab (IO/IO), pembrolizumab/axitinib (IO/TKI), nivolumab/cabozantinib (IO/TKI), and pembrolizumab/lenvatinib (IO/TKI). The ipilimumab/nivolumab combination is notable for durable efficacy after extended 4-year follow-up. IO/TKI combinations have clinical efficacy across all IMDC risk groups with higher response rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS) but also had higher ≥ grade 3 adverse events rate. Patient tumor burden, performance status, and IMDC risk group are factors in choosing an IO-based treatment. IO/IO and IO/TKI combinations for mccRCC have distinct efficacy and toxicity profiles. Future studies are needed to identify biomarkers to optimize patient outcomes.

Efficacy and Safety of First-line Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Considerable advances have been made in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), with immunotherapy-based combinations including immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (IO-TKIs) and dual immunotherapy (IO-IO) favored. A lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing these treatments means that there is uncertainty regarding their use in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic treatments for mRCC with a focus on IO-based combinations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and abstracts of recent major scientific meetings were searched to identify the most up-to-date phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line IO-based combinations for mRCC up to June 2021. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were completed using the Bayesian framework. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment-related drug discontinuation (TRDD), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The analysis was performed for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population as well as by clinical risk group.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of six phase 3 RCTs were included involving a total of 5121 patients. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit in the ITT population (surface under the cumulative ranking curve 82%). Avelumab plus axitinib (AVEL-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with favorable risk (65%). Pembrolizumab plus AXI (PEMBRO-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with intermediate risk (78%). PEMBRO plus lenvatinib (PEMBRO-LENV) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with poor risk (89%). PEMBRO-LENV was associated with a superior PFS benefit across all risk groups (89-98%). Maximal ORR was achieved with PEMBRO-LENV (97%). The highest likelihood for CR was attained with NIVO plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI; 85%) and PEMBRO-LENV (83%). The highest grade 3-4 TRAE rate occurred with PEMBRO-LENV (95%) and NIVO-CABO (83%), but the latter was associated with the lowest TRDD rate (2%). By contrast, NIVO-IPI had the lowest grade 3-4 TRAE rate (6%) and the highest likelihood of TRDD (100%). HRQoL consistently favored NIVO-CABO (66-75%), PEMBRO-LENV (44-85%), and NIVO-IPI (65-93%) in comparison to the other treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

IO-TKI drug combinations are associated with consistent improvements in clinically relevant outcomes for all mRCC risk groups. This benefit may be at the cost of higher TRAE rates; however, lower TRDD rates suggest a manageable side-effect profile. Longer follow-up is required to determine if the benefits of IO-TKIs will be sustained and if they should be favored in the first-line treatment of mRCC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Combination treatments based on immunotherapy agents continue to show meaningful benefits in the first-line treatment of metastatic kidney cancer. Our review and network meta-analysis shows that immunotherapy combined with another class of agents called tyrosine kinase inhibitors is promising. However, longer follow-up is needed for this treatment strategy to clarify if the benefits are long-lasting.

Silencing lncRNA SLC16A1-AS1 Induced Ferroptosis in Renal Cell Carcinoma Through miR-143-3p/SLC7A11 Signaling

Introduction: Renal cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world, but the effect of therapies on advanced renal cancer has not improved for decades. Ferroptosis is an emerging type of programmed cell death and has been proved to play a vital role in many kinds of cancers. However, the mechanisms of ferroptosis regulated by long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) in the context of renal cancer was still unknown. Methods: We used bioinformation analysis to identify SLC16A1-AS1 as a survival-related lncRNA in renal cancer. The expression levels of SLC16A1-AS1 and microRNA-143-3p (miR-143-3p) were detected by quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. Cell counting kit-8 assay, 5-bromo-2′-deoxyuridine proliferation assay, and colony-formation assay were performed to evaluate cell viability and proliferation. Wound-healing assay and transwell assay were used to examine cell invasive and migration capacity. Dual-luciferase reporter assay and RNA-binding protein immunoprecipitation were used to identify the interaction among SLC16A1-AS1, miR-143-3p, and the target protein solute carrier family 7 membrane 11 (SLC7A11). Reduced glutathione and glutathione and lipid peroxidation measurements were carried out to evaluate the level of ferroptosis, and the expression levels of ferroptosis-related proteins were analyzed by western blot. Results: Our study revealed that SLC16A1-AS1 has high expression and was associated with overall survival in renal cancer. Knockdown SLC16A1-AS1 inhibited cell viability, proliferation, and migration of renal cancer cells. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that SLC16A1-AS1 served as a sponge of miR-143-3p, and knockdown SLC16A1-AS1 significantly increased the enrichment of miR-143-3p. And then, SLC7A11 was identified as the target protein of miR-143-3p, and overexpression miR-143-3p remarkably inhibited the expression of SLC7A11. Moreover, knockdown SLC16A1-AS1 could aggravate this effect. Finally, through inhibiting SLC7A11 expression, silencing SLC16A1-AS1 induced ferroptosis via increasing miR-143-3p. Conclusion: The present results suggest that silencing lncRNA SLC16A1-AS1 can induce ferroptosis through miR-143-3p/SLC7A11 signaling in renal cancer. Our study provided a novel view into the pathogenesis and treatment strategy of RCC.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy for treatment-naïve metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma-A network meta-analysis. Focus on cabozantinib combined with nivolumab

Introduction: The combination of immunotherapy and targeted therapy is currently marking a new era in the treatment of renal cancer. The latest clinical guidelines recommend the use of drug combinations for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cancer. The aim of this review is to compare the efficacy of combined cabozantinib + nivolumab therapy with other immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies blocking the CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T cell antigen 4) in the first-line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Methodology: A systematic literature search was carried out in the PubMed and EMBASE databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on therapies recommended by the latest EAU and ESMO guidelines for treatment-naïve metastatic RCC (i.e., lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, axitinib + pembrolizumab and nivolumab + ipilimumab) were searched. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed for data synthesis. The methodology of included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane RoB two tool. The data were analyzed in the overall population as well as in risk subgroups defined according to the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) i.e., patients with a favorable and intermediate or poor prognoses. The most recent cut-off dates from included studies were analyzed. Results: Four RCTs (CheckMate 9 ER, KEYNOTE-426, CLEAR and CheckMate 214) were included in the review. No studies directly comparing cabozantinib + nivolumab with any of the drug combinations included in this review were available. NMA showed that cabozantinib + nivolumab was superior compared to axitinib + pembrolizumab and nivolumab + ipilimumab in all analyzed comparisons (overall population and IMDC risk subgroups), both in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). The advantage of cabozantinib + nivolumab was statistically significant only for PFS when compared to nivolumab + ipilimumab in the overall population. The results for the comparison of cabozantinib + nivolumab with lenvatinib + pembrolizumab showed numerical superiority of lenvatinib + pembrolizumab combination in terms of overall survival, but none of the results were statistically significant. The advantage of lenvatinib + pembrolizumab over cabozantinib + nivolumab in terms of PFS was statistically significant in the overall and favorable prognosis population. Conclusion: Inclusion of the most recent cut-off data from CheckMate 9 ER did not affect the role of the cabozantinib + nivolumab combination for treatment-naïve metastatic RCC. Cabozantinib + nivolumab is an effective therapeutic option for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cancer that is recommended both in the latest European and American guidelines for all IMDC risk groups.

C‐reactive protein flare‐response predicts long‐term efficacy to first‐line anti‐PD‐1‐based combination therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Objectives

Immune checkpoint blockade (IO) has revolutionised the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Early C‐reactive protein (CRP) kinetics, especially the recently introduced CRP flare‐response phenomenon, has shown promising results to predict IO efficacy in mRCC, but has only been studied in second line or later. Here, we aimed to validate the predictive value of early CRP kinetics for 1st‐line treatment of mRCC with αPD‐1 plus either αCTLA‐4 (IO+IO) or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO+TKI).

Methods

In this multicentre retrospective study, we investigated the predictive potential of early CRP kinetics during 1st‐line IO therapy. Ninety‐five patients with mRCC from six tertiary referral centres with either IO+IO (N = 59) or IO+TKI (N = 36) were included. Patients were classified as CRP flare‐responders, CRP responders or non‐CRP responders as previously described, and their oncological outcome was compared.

Results

Our data validate the predictive potential of early CRP kinetics in 1st‐line immunotherapy in mRCC. CRP responders, especially CRP flare‐responders, had significantly prolonged progression‐free survival (PFS) compared with non‐CRP responders (median PFS: CRP flare‐responder: 19.2 months vs. responders: 16.2 vs. non‐CRP responders: 5.6, P < 0.001). In both the IO+IO and IO+TKI subgroups, early CRP kinetics remained significantly associated with improved PFS. CRP flare‐response was also associated with long‐term response ≥ 12 months.

Conclusions

Early CRP kinetics appears to be a low‐cost and easy‐to‐implement on‐treatment biomarker to predict response to 1st‐line IO combination therapy. It has potential to optimise therapy monitoring and might represent a new standard of care biomarker for immunotherapy in mRCC.

Association of tumor burden with outcome in first-line therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab for previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the prognostic impact of tumor burden in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy for previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 62 patients with IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk mRCC, treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy at five affiliated institutions. Tumor burden was defined as the sum of diameters of baseline targeted lesions according to the RECIST version.1.1. We categorized the patients into two groups based on the median value of tumor burden (i.e., high vs. low). The association of tumor burden with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment was analyzed.

RESULTS

The median tumor burden was 63.0 cm (interquartile range: 34.2-125.8). PFS was significantly shorter in patients with high tumor burden (n = 31) than in those with low tumor burden (n = 31) (median: 6.08 [95% CI: 2.73-9.70] vs. 12.5 [4.77-24.0] months, P = 0.0134). In addition, OS tended to be shorter in patients with high tumor burden; however, there was no statistically significant difference (1-year rate: 77.3 vs. 96.7%, P = 0.166). ORR was not significantly different between patients with high and low tumor burden (35 vs. 55%, P = 0.202). Multivariate analysis of PFS further showed that tumor burden was an independent factor (HR: 2.22 [95% CI: 1.11-4.45], P = 0.0242).

CONCLUSIONS

Tumor burden might be a useful factor for outcome prediction, at least for PFS prediction, in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for mRCC. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

Long intragenic non-coding RNA p53-induced transcript (LINC-PINT) as a novel prognosis indicator and therapeutic target in cancer

Cancer involves complex etiology factors, multiple stages, and intricate gene mutations. Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are implicated as molecular mechanisms underlying human genomic activity in various physiologic and pathophysiologic conditions. However, the sophisticated modifications and regulatory processes linking lncRNAs to cancer initiation and progression have not yet been fully explored. Long intragenic non-coding RNA p53-induced transcript (LINC-PINT) is an lncRNA that functions as a tumor suppressor gene involved in various tumors and malignant activities. LINC-PINT is downregulated in nasopharyngeal cancer, renal carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, glioblastoma, thyroid cancer, retinoblastoma, ovarian cancer, breast cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, osteosarcoma, melanoma, and gastric cancer. Furthermore, decreased LINC-PINT expression predicts poor prognosis and advanced clinical tumor stages. Together, these studies indicate that LINC-PINT could serve as a diagnostic and prognostic indicator in cancer. The specific lncRNA regulatory mechanism of LINC-PINT may also be a novel target for cancer therapies.

CTLA4 promoter hypomethylation is a negative prognostic biomarker at initial diagnosis but predicts response and favorable outcome to anti-PD-1 based immunotherapy in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), different combination therapies, each including anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), are applied as first-line treatment. Robust predictive biomarkers for rational upfront therapy decisions are lacking, although they are urgently needed. Recently, we showed that CTLA4 promoter methylation predicts response to ICB in melanoma. Here, we aimed to investigate CTLA4 methylation in ccRCC and its utility to serve as a predictive biomarker for anti-PD-1 based ICB in metastatic ccRCC.

METHODS

CTLA4 methylation was analyzed with regard to transcriptional gene activity (mRNA expression), intratumoral immune cell composition, and clinical course in two ccRCC cohorts obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA cohort, n=533) and the University Hospital Bonn (UHB Non-ICB Cohort, n=116). In addition, CTLA4 methylation as well as CD8+ T cell infiltrates and PD-L1 expression were evaluated in pre-treatment samples from a multicenter cohort (RCC-ICB Cohort, n=71). Patients included in the RCC-ICB Cohort were treated with either first line anti-PD-1 based combination therapy (n=25) or monotherapy post-tyrosine kinase inhibition in second line or later. Analyses were performed with regard to treatment response according to RECIST, progression-free survival (PFS), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS) following treatment initiation.

RESULTS

CTLA4 promoter hypomethylation was significantly correlated with CTLA4 mRNA expression, lymphocyte infiltration, and poor OS in both primary ccRCC cohorts (TCGA: HR 0.30 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.49), p<0.001; UHB Non-ICB: HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.75), p=0.007). In contrast, CTLA4 promoter hypomethylation predicted response and, accordingly, favorable outcomes (PFS and OS) in patients with ICB-treated ccRCC, overcompensating the negative prognostic value of CTLA4 hypomethylation at initial diagnosis. Moreover, in multivariable Cox regression, CTLA4 promoter hypomethylation remained an independent predictor of improved outcome in ICB-treated ccRCC after co-adjustment of the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium score (HR 3.00 (95% CI 1.47 to 6.28), p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests CTLA4 methylation as a powerful predictive biomarker for immunotherapy response in metastatic RCC.

Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis of Renal Cell Carcinoma With Spinal Bone Metastases

Background

The prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with spinal bone metastasis (sBM) varies greatly. In this study, we aimed to define the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of RCC with spinal bone metastasis (sBM) in our center.

Methods

The clinical and medical records of RCC patients with sBMs were collected. The gender, age, time of BM, the extent of BM, the number of BMs, the presence or absence of visceral metastasis, and the pathological type of BM were investigated. All patients were followed up regularly. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of BMs diagnosis to death or last follow-up using Kaplan-Meier method and modelled with Cox regression analysis.

Results

Forty-three RCC patients with sBM were collected. sBM was found synchronously in 30 patients (70%) and metachronously in 13 patients (30%). The median survival time was 30 months in 13 patients (30%) with solitary sBM and 19 months in 30 patients (70%) with multiple sBMs (P = 0.002). Visceral metastasis occurred in 12 patients (28%) with the median survival time of 17 months, while the other 31 patients (72%) had no visceral metastasis with the median survival time of 29 months (P<0.001). En-block resection was done in 10 patients with median survival time of 40.1 months. Non-en-block resection were done in 33 patients with median survival time of 19.7 months (P<0.001). Multivariate COX regression analysis showed that MSKCC score, number of BM, visceral metastasis, and en-block resection are the independent prognosis factors of RCC patients with sBM.

Conclusions

MSKCC risk stratification, number of sBM, visceral metastasis and en-block resection are significant prognostic factors for OS in RCC patients with spinal BM. Therefore, for selected patients who has solitary spinal BM with no visceral metastasis, en-block resection of spinal BM can potentially prolong survival and is the treatment of choice.