Survival by Depth of Response and Efficacy by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Subgroup with Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of the Phase 3 Randomized CLEAR Study

BACKGROUND

The extent of tumor shrinkage has been deemed a predictor of survival for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a disease with historically poor survival.

OBJECTIVE

To perform an exploratory analysis of overall survival (OS) by tumor response by 6 mo, and to assess the efficacy and survival outcomes in specific subgroups.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

CLEAR was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial of first-line treatment of advanced clear cell RCC.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally daily with pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 wk, lenvatinib plus everolimus (not included in this analysis), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily for 4 wk on treatment/2 wk of no treatment.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Landmark analyses were conducted to assess the association of OS with tumor shrinkage and progressive disease status by 6 mo. Progression-free survival, duration of response, and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk subgroup and by the presence of target kidney lesions. Efficacy was assessed by an independent review committee as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Landmark analyses by tumor shrinkage showed that patients enrolled to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm with a confirmed complete response or >75% target-lesion reduction by 6 mo had a 24-mo OS probability of ≥91.7%. A landmark analysis by disease progression showed that patients with no progression by 6 mo had lower probabilities of death in both arms. Patients with an IMDC risk classification of intermediate/poor had longer median progression-free survival (22.1 vs 5.9 mo) and a higher ORR (72.4% vs 28.8%) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib. Similarly, results favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in IMDC-favorable patients and those with/without target kidney lesions. Limitations of the study are that results were exploratory and not powered/stratified.

CONCLUSIONS

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed improved efficacy versus sunitinib for patients with advanced RCC; landmark analyses showed that tumor response by 6 mo correlated with longer OS.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report of the CLEAR trial, we explored the survival of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma by assessing how well they initially responded to treatment. We also explored how certain groups of patients responded to treatment overall. Patients were assigned to cycles of either lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 wk or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 wk (followed by a 2-wk break). Patients who either had a "complete response" or had their tumors shrunk by >75% within 6 mo after starting treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab had better survival than those with less tumor reduction by 6 mo. Additionally, patients who had more severe disease (as per the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) at the start of study treatment survived for longer without disease progression with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib.

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.

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

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

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Treatment of Renal Cancer: Current State and Future Perspective

Systemic treatment of renal cancer (RCC) has undergone remarkable changes over the past 20 years with the introduction of immunotherapeutic agents targeting programmed cell death (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis, as a single-agent or combined with anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) or a multi-target vascular endothelial growth factor-(VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). In this paper, we review the main evidence on the use of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) for RCC treatment from the first demonstration of activity of a nivolumab single agent in a phase I trial to the novel combination strategies (anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD-1 plus TKI). In addition, we discuss the use of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents in patients with non-clear cells and rare histological subtype RCC. Then, we critically examine the current findings in biomarkers that have been proposed to be prognostic or predictive to the response of immunotherapy including immune gene expression signature, B7-H1 expression, PBRM1 loss of function, PD-L1 expression, frame shift indel count, mutations in bromodomain-containing genes in patients with MiT family translocation RCC (tRCC), high expression of the T-effector gene signature, and a high myeloid inflammation gene expression pattern. To date, a single biomarker as a predictor of response has not been established. Since the dynamic behavior of the immune response and the different impact of ICI treatment on patients with specific RCC subtypes, the integration of multiple biomarkers and further validation in clinical trials are needed.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapy combinations in renal cell carcinoma

The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been transformed with the advent of antiangiogenics, notably tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Both treatment options have improved outcomes of patients and modified the natural history of mRCC. Clinical investigations have focused on evaluating combination regimens containing ICIs and VEGFR-directed TKIs. Namely, the combinations of axitinib plus pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-426) and axitinib plus avelumab (JAVELIN RENAL 101) have shown improved outcomes compared with sunitinib in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. In this review, we discuss the clinical data of single-agent TKIs and ICIs in mRCC and the rationale for the combination ICIs and TKIs based on preclinical and clinical evidence. We also explore the current challenges for regimen selection and development of predictive biomarkers.