Advanced renal cell carcinoma management: the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) consensus update

PURPOSE

Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil.

METHODS

A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease.

CONCLUSION

Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature.

A phase I, open-label study of trebananib combined with sorafenib or sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Trebananib, an investigational peptibody, binds to angiopoietin 1 and 2, thereby blocking their interaction with Tie2.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This open-label phase I study examined trebananib 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg intravenous (I.V.) once weekly plus sorafenib 400 mg twice per day or sunitinib 50 mg once per day in advanced RCC. Primary end points were adverse event incidence and pharmacokinetics.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were enrolled. During trebananib plus sorafenib administration (n = 17), the most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) included rash (n = 12; 71%), diarrhea (n = 12; 71%), hypertension (n = 11; 65%), and fatigue (n = 11; 65%); grade ≥ 3 TRAEs (n = 7; 41%); and 2 patients (12%) had peripheral edema. During trebananib plus sunitinib administration (n = 19), the most common TRAEs included diarrhea (n = 14; 74%), fatigue (n = 13; 68%), hypertension (n = 11; 58%), and decreased appetite (n = 11; 58%); grade ≥ 3 TRAEs (n = 13; 68%); and 8 (42%) patients had peripheral edema. Trebananib did not appear to alter the pharmacokinetics of sorafenib or sunitinib. No patient developed anti-trebananib antibodies. Objective response rates were 29% (trebananib plus sorafenib) and 53% (trebananib plus sunitinib).

CONCLUSION

The toxicities of trebananib 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg I.V. plus sorafenib or sunitinib in RCC were similar to those of sorafenib or sunitinib monotherapy, with peripheral edema being likely specific to the combinations. Antitumor activity was observed.