A First-in-Human Phase 1 Study of a Tumor-Directed RNA-Interference Drug against HIF2α in Patients with Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE

ARO-HIF2 is an siRNA drug designed to selectively target hypoxia-inducible factor-2α (HIF2α) interrupting downstream pro-oncogenic signaling in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). The aims of this Phase 1 study (AROHIF21001) were to evaluate safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and establish a recommended Phase 2 dose.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Subjects with ccRCC and progressive disease after at least 2 prior therapies that included VEGF and immune checkpoint inhibitors were progressively enrolled into dose-escalation cohorts of ARO-HIF2 administered intravenously at 225, 525, or 1,050 mg weekly.

RESULTS

Twenty-six subjects received ARO-HIF2. The most common treatment emergent adverse events (AE) irrespective of causality were fatigue (50.0%), dizziness (26.9%), dyspnea (23.1%), and nausea (23.1%). Four subjects (15.4%) had treatment-related serious AEs. AEs of special interest included neuropathy, hypoxia, and dyspnea. ARO-HIF2 was almost completely cleared from plasma circulation within 48 hours with minimal renal clearance. Reductions in HIF2α were observed between pre- and post-dosing tumor biopsies, but the magnitude was quite variable. The objective response rate was 7.7% and the disease control rate was 38.5%. Responses were accompanied by ARO-HIF2 uptake in tumor cells, HIF2α downregulation, as well as rapid suppression of tumor produced erythropoietin (EPO) in a patient with paraneoplastic polycythemia.

CONCLUSIONS

ARO-HIF2 downregulated HIF2α in advanced ccRCC-inhibiting tumor growth in a subset of subjects. Further development was hampered by off-target neurotoxicity and low response rate. This study provides proof of concept that siRNA can target tumors in a specific manner.

COVID-19 severity by vaccination status in the NCI COVID-19 and Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS)

We investigated the association of SARS CoV-2 vaccination with COVID-19 severity in a longitudinal study of adult cancer patients with COVID-19. A total of 1610 patients who were within 14 days of an initial positive SARS CoV-2 test and had received recent anticancer treatment or had a history of stem cell transplant or CAR-T cell therapy were enrolled between May 21, 2020, and February 1, 2022. Patients were considered fully vaccinated if they were 2 weeks past their second dose of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) or a single dose of adenovirus vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) at the time of positive SARS CoV-2 test. We defined severe COVID-19 disease as hospitalization for COVID-19 or death within 30 days. Vaccinated patients were significantly less likely to develop severe disease compared with those who were unvaccinated (odds ratio = 0.44, 95% confidence interval = 0.28 to 0.72, P < .001). These results support COVID-19 vaccination among cancer patients receiving active immunosuppressive treatment.

Adjuvant immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise available data regarding the disease-free survival (DFS) benefit of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and evaluate the overall safety profile of ICIs in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We utilised PubMed, Embase, and relevant conference proceedings to identify phase III randomised controlled trials comparing adjuvant ICIs vs placebo/observation for RCC. The primary outcome of interest was DFS. Variables for subgroup analyses were programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, sarcomatoid features, nephrectomy type, and disease-risk category. Secondary outcomes included Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), immune-related AEs, and treatment discontinuation due to AEs. All outcomes were analysed using random-effects models owing to inter-study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Among the four included studies, one demonstrated a significant DFS benefit. There was considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity (I2  = 64%) due to differences in inclusion criteria and interventions. While pooled results across the four studies did not demonstrate a significant benefit in DFS overall (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.04) there was significant benefit among patients with positive PD-L1 expression (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.94) and sarcomatoid features (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38-0.91).

CONCLUSION

The evidence base to date regarding ICIs as adjuvant therapy in RCC is mixed - conclusions are limited by considerable heterogeneity between studies. However, pooled analyses suggest that patients with positive PD-L1 expression or sarcomatoid features are most likely to benefit from adjuvant immunotherapy.

Tivozanib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Previously Treated With Axitinib: Subgroup Analysis from TIVO-3

BACKGROUND

In phase III TIVO-3 trial, tivozanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the effectiveness of this drug after exposure to other selective VEGFR agents has not yet been defined. Herein, we characterize the clinical efficacy of tivozanib in patients with mRCC previously treated with axitinib.

METHODS

We identified patients from the intention to treat (ITT) population, in the TIVO-3 trial, who received treatment with axitinib before enrolment in the study and evaluated PFS, response rate (RR), and safety.

RESULTS

Out of 350 patients, 172 (83:89, tivozanib:sorafenib) had received prior treatment with axitinib in TIVO-3. In this subgroup, PFS was 5.5 months with tivozanib and 3.7 months with sorafenib (HR 0.68). RR was 13% and 8% favoring tivozanib.

CONCLUSIONS

Tivozanib is active in the treatment of patients with mRCC who have progressed on prior therapies, including axitinib.

Patients' Perceptions Regarding the Relevance of Items Contained in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal method of assessing health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This study explored the perceived relevance of items that make up the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), as judged by patients with mRCC.

METHODS

This was a multinational cross-sectional survey. Eligible patients responded to a questionnaire composed of 18 items that assessed the perceived relevance of each item in the FKSI-19 questionnaire. Open-ended questions assessed additional issues deemed relevant by patients. Responses were grouped as relevant (scores 2-5) or nonrelevant (score 1). Descriptive statistics were collated, and open-ended questions were analyzed and categorized into descriptive categories. Spearman correlation statistics were used to test the association between relevance and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients were included (gender: 78.1 M, 21.9F; median age: 64; treatment: 38.4 immunotherapy, 29.8 targeted therapy, 13.9 immuno-TKI combination therapy) in the study. The most relevant questions evaluated fatigue (77.5), lack of energy (72.2), and worry that their condition will get worse (71.5). Most patients rated blood in urine (15.2), fevers (16.6), and lack of appetite (23.2) as least relevant. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions revealed several themes, including emotional and physical symptoms, ability to live independently, effectiveness of treatment, family, spirituality, and financial toxicity.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to refine widely used HR-QOL measures that are employed among patients diagnosed with mRCC treated with contemporary therapies. Guidance was provided for the inclusion of more relevant items to patients' cancer journey.

Comparative real-world survival outcomes of metastatic papillary and clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and combination therapy

INTRODUCTION

While there are a plethora of studies supporting novel treatment approaches in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), much of the data used to inform care of patients with metastatic papillary RCC (pRCC) is extrapolated from ccRCC. Several recent phase III trials have supported the use of immunotherapy (IO) and targeted therapy (TT)+IO in ccRCC, without corresponding data for pRCC. Using ccRCC as a comparison group, we sought to describe real-world trends in the utilization of systemic therapy and its impact on overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic pRCC.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we identified cases of metastatic pRCC and ccRCC between 2015 and 2018. Patients were stratified into groups based on histology and first-line treatments (TT, IO, TT + IO). Differences in baseline characteristics were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables, and the Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 6,920 patients with a diagnosis of metastatic RCC were identified: 594 (8.6%) with pRCC and 6,326 (91.4%) with ccRCC. Overall, 4,710 patients received TT (455 pRCC and 4,255 ccRCC), 1,585 received IO (77 pRCC and 1,508 ccRCC), and 625 received TT+IO (62 pRCC and 563 ccRCC). Temporal trend between 2015 and 2018 revealed an increased utilization of IO and TT + IO for pRCC and ccRCC. In patients with metastatic pRCC, neither IO (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.75-1.42) nor TT+IO (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.63-1.28) were associated with better OS compared to TT alone. In contrast, both IO and combination TT and IO were associated with significantly better OS than TT for patients with metastatic ccRCC (IO group: hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.82; TT+IO group: HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.93). Cytoreductive nephrectomy was associated with better OS in both pRCC (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.77) and ccRCC (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50-0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Although IO and TT + IO were associated with better OS among patients with metastatic ccRCC, this same effect was not observed among patients with pRCC.

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.

Temporal Characteristics of Adverse Events of Tivozanib and Sorafenib in Previously Treated Kidney Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Tivozanib, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, met the primary endpoint of improved progression free survival compared to sorafenib in the phase 3 TIVO-3 study in patients with previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In this study we sought to understand the temporal characteristics of treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) and frequency and timing of the dose modifications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this open label, randomized, phase 3 TIVO-3 study, previously treated patients with a diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and with measurable disease were included. Patients were randomized to receive either tivozanib 1.5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. Based on updated safety analysis data (cutoff date of August 15, 2019), time to onset of the most commonly reported TRAEs, duration of toxicity, rate of dose modifications was calculated for each treatment arm.

RESULTS

Overall, 350 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivozanib or sorafenib;173 patients from the tivozanib arm and 170 patients from the sorafenib arm were included in this analysis. Patients received a median of 11.9 cycles (336 days) and 6.7 cycles (192 days) of tivozanib and sorafenib, respectively. Dose reductions, interruptions and treatment discontinuations were 25%, 50%, and 21%, and 39%, 50%, and 30% in the tivozanib and sorafenib arms, respectively, with a longer time to onset of TRAEs in the tivozanib arm.

CONCLUSION

Tivozanib was associated with less TRAEs, fewer dose modifications, a longer time to onset and a shorter duration of TRAEs compared to sorafenib.

Adjuvant atezolizumab versus placebo for patients with renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence following resection (IMmotion010): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The standard of care for locoregional renal cell carcinoma is surgery, but many patients experience recurrence. The objective of the current study was to determine if adjuvant atezolizumab (vs placebo) delayed recurrence in patients with an increased risk of recurrence after resection.

METHODS

IMmotion010 is a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial conducted in 215 centres in 28 countries. Eligible patients were patients aged 18 years or older with renal cell carcinoma with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component and increased risk of recurrence. After nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo (both intravenous) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice-web response system. Stratification factors were disease stage (T2 or T3a vs T3b-c or T4 or N+ vs M1 no evidence of disease), geographical region (north America [excluding Mexico] vs rest of the world), and PD-L1 status on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (<1% vs ≥1% expression). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who were randomised, regardless of whether study treatment was received. The safety-evaluable population included all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received any amount of study drug (ie, atezolizumab or placebo), regardless of whether a full or partial dose was received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03024996, and is closed to further accrual.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 3, 2017, and Feb 15, 2019, 778 patients were enrolled; 390 (50%) were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 388 (50%) to the placebo group. At data cutoff (May 3, 2022), the median follow-up duration was 44·7 months (IQR 39·1-51·0). Median investigator-assessed disease-free survival was 57·2 months (95% CI 44·6 to not evaluable) with atezolizumab and 49·5 months (47·4 to not evaluable) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·93, 95% CI 0·75-1·15, p=0·50). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (seven [2%] patients who received atezolizumab vs 15 [4%] patients who received placebo), hyperglycaemia (ten [3%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (two [1%] vs seven [2%]). 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo had a serious adverse event. There were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

Atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy after resection for patients with renal cell carcinoma with increased risk of recurrence showed no evidence of improved clinical outcomes versus placebo. These study results do not support adjuvant atezolizumab for treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, a member of the Roche group.

An interdisciplinary consensus on the management of brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma

Brain metastases are a challenging manifestation of renal cell carcinoma. We have a limited understanding of brain metastasis tumor and immune biology, drivers of resistance to systemic treatment, and their overall poor prognosis. Current data support a multimodal treatment strategy with radiation treatment and/or surgery. Nonetheless, the optimal approach for the management of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma remains unclear. To improve patient care, the authors sought to standardize practical management strategies. They performed an unstructured literature review and elaborated on the current management strategies through an international group of experts from different disciplines assembled via the network of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition. Experts from different disciplines were administered a survey to answer questions related to current challenges and unmet patient needs. On the basis of the integrated approach of literature review and survey study results, the authors built algorithms for the management of single and multiple brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The literature review, consensus statements, and algorithms presented in this report can serve as a framework guiding treatment decisions for patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:454-489.

Tumor-Infiltrating Myeloid Cells Co-Express TREM1 and TREM2 and Elevated TREM-1 Associates With Disease Progression in Renal Cell Carcinoma

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) and tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) contribute to cancer-related inflammation and tumor progression. While several myeloid molecules have been ascribed a regulatory function in these processes, the triggering receptors expressed on myeloid cells (TREMs) have emerged as potent modulators of the innate immune response. While various TREMs amplify inflammation, others dampen it and are emerging as important players in modulating tumor progression-for instance, soluble TREM-1 (sTREM-1), which is detected during inflammation, associates with disease progression, while TREM-2 expression is associated with tumor-promoting macrophages. We hypothesized that TREM-1 and TREM-2 might be co-expressed on tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells and that elevated sTREM-1 associates with disease outcomes, thus representing a possibility for mutual modulation in cancer. Using the 4T1 breast cancer model, we found TREM-1 and TREM-2 expression on MDSC and TAM and that sTREM-1 was elevated in tumor-bearing mice in multiple models and correlated with tumor volume. While TREM-1 engagement enhanced TNF, a TREM-2 ligand was detected on MDSC and TAM, suggesting that both TREM could be functional in the tumor setting. Similarly, we detected TREM-1 and Trem2 expression in myeloid cells in the RENCA model of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We confirmed these findings in human disease by demonstrating the expression of TREM-1 on tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells from patients with RCC and finding that sTREM-1 was increased in patients with RCC. Finally, The Cancer Genome Atlas analysis shows that TREM1 expression in tumors correlates with poor outcomes in RCC. Taken together, our data suggest that manipulation of the TREM-1/TREM-2 balance in tumors may be a novel means to modulate tumor-infiltrating myeloid cell phenotype and function.

417 Phase 3 study of pembrolizumab + belzutifan + lenvatinib or pembrolizumab/quavonlimab + lenvatinib versus pembrolizumab + lenvatinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Background

Pembrolizumab + vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor lenvatinib demonstrated antitumor activity as first-line treatment for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) in phase 3 trial KEYNOTE-581/CLEAR (NCT02811861). Hypoxia-inducible factor 2α (HIF-2α) inhibitor belzutifan (MK-6482) showed antitumor activity in ccRCC, and a coformulation of pembrolizumab and CTLA-4 inhibitor quavonlimab (MK-1308A) showed antitumor activity in non–small cell lung cancer. HIF-2α or CTLA-4 inhibition with PD-1 and VEGF inhibition backbone combination may provide additional benefit as first-line treatment in ccRCC. This open-label, randomized, phase 3 study (NCT04736706) will be conducted to compare novel combination therapies pembrolizumab + belzutifan + lenvatinib (arm A) and MK-1308A + lenvatinib (arm B) with pembrolizumab + lenvatinib (arm C).

Methods

Approximately 1431 adults with metastatic ccRCC, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, and Karnofsky Performance Status Scale score ≥70% who had not previously undergone systemic therapy for advanced ccRCC will be enrolled. Patients will be randomly assigned 1:1:1 to arm A (belzutifan 120 mg + lenvatinib 20 mg oral once daily + pembrolizumab 400 mg IV every 6 weeks), arm B (MK-1308A [quavonlimab 25 mg + pembrolizumab 400 mg] IV every 6 weeks and lenvatinib 20 mg oral once daily), or arm C (pembrolizumab 400 mg IV every 6 weeks + lenvatinib 20 mg oral once daily). Treatment will continue until documented disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or other discontinuation event; patients will receive pembrolizumab and MK-1308A for up to 18 cycles (approximately 2 years). Patients will be stratified by International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score (favorable vs intermediate vs poor), region of the world (North America vs Western Europe vs rest of the world), and sarcomatoid features (yes vs no). Response will be assessed by CT or MRI per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR) at week 12 from randomization, every 6 weeks through week 78, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Adverse events and serious adverse events will be monitored throughout the study and for 90 days after treatment. Dual primary end points are progression-free survival per RECIST v1.1 by BICR and overall survival. Primary end points will be assessed in arm A compared with arm C and in arm B compared with arm C for patients with IMDC intermediate/poor status and in all patients regardless of IMDC status. Secondary end points are objective response rate and duration of response per RECIST v1.1 by BICR, patient-reported outcomes, and safety.

Acknowledgements

Medical writing and/or editorial assistance was provided by Matthew Grzywacz, PhD, of ApotheCom (Yardley, PA, USA). This assistance was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and Eisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA. Funding for this research was provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA,Eisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.

gov, NCT04736706

Ethics Approval

The study and the protocol were approved by the Institutional Review Board or ethics committee at each site.

906 Immunogenomic evaluation of clear cell renal carcinoma uncovers HK3 as a myeloid specific metabolic enzyme

Background

Glucose fixation is a hallmark clear cell renal carcinoma (ccRCC).1 2 Our group has shown unique metabolic enzyme utilization between malignant cells and infiltrating cells. Additionally, we uncovered the glycolytic nature of tumor infiltrating myeloid cells.3 Therefore, we decided to investigate the role of the hexokinase isoforms (HK1,2/3, GCK, and HKDC1) in the ccRCC tumor microenvironment (TME).

Methods

For this study, we performed immunogenomic analyses across ccRCC samples available via The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA).4 5 Additionally, we examined the expression of hexokinases in the neoadjuvant VEGF inhibitor setting6 as well as correlation to a poor prognostic macrophage subset.7 Our group also performed single cell-ATAC seq on methocult cultures to further characterize the metabolic features of hematopoiesis. We additionally implemented qPCR on magnetically sorted bone marrow as well as myeloid cell culture to further interrogate the role of HK3 in macrophage biology and in-situ RNA hybridization (RNA-ISH) to describe the subpopulation of HK3+ cells in the ccRCC TME.

Results

Gene set enrichment analysis confirmed HK1/2’s role in anabolic metabolism. GCK was barely detectable in these samples while HKDC1 expression decreased in ccRCC tumors. Intriguingly, patients with elevated expression of HK3 had an enrichment of interferon gamma response signature. In our evaluation of the TCGA, only HK3 expression correlated with poor outcome in ccRCC. CiberSortX demonstrated that HK3 expressing tumors correlated with the presence M2 macrophages while other HK family enzymes had marginal association with immune infiltrate. HK3 was the only hexokinase found to be significantly elevated with neoadjuvant pazopanib treatment in addition to being enriched in ccRCC patients with high levels of poor prognostic macrophages. RNA-ISH confirms HK3 expression is limited to myeloid cells in ccRCC tumors. The myeloid specific nature of HK3 is supported by transcript analysis from MC38 tumors, and qPCR on mouse bone marrow. Myeloid specificity for HK3 isoform expression is not restricted to malignancy; HK3 is one of a handful of genes that define myeloid identity from scATAC sequencing of in vitro differentiated CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells. Our ongoing in vitro studies indicate that M1 polarization (+LPS/IFNg) increases expression of HK1/2/3, consistent with the anabolic phenotype of activate macrophages. However, stimulation with IFNg alone only elevates the expression of HK3.

Conclusions

HK3 is a myeloid specific interferon gamma responsive gene, whose expression imparts poor prognosis for ccRCC cancer patients, while HK1/HK2 contribute significantly to the glucose uptake/pseudohypoxic phenotype seen throughout the ccRCC TME.

Acknowledgements

N/a

Trial Registration

N/A

References

Courtney KD, et al. Isotope tracing of human clear cell renal cell carcinomas demonstrates suppressed glucose oxidation in vivo. Cell metabolism 2018;28(5):793–800.e2.

Linehan WM, et al. The metabolic basis of kidney cancer. Cancer Discov 2019;9(8):1006–1021.

Reinfeld BI, et al. Cell-programmed nutrient partitioning in the tumour microenvironment. Nature 2021.

Ricketts CJ, et al. The cancer genome atlas comprehensive molecular characterization of renal cell carcinoma. Cell reports 2018;23(1):313–326.e5.

Creighton CJ, et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Nature 2013;499(7456):43–49.

Wood CG, et al. Neoadjuvant pazopanib and molecular analysis of tissue response in renal cell carcinoma. JCI Insight 2020;5(22).

Obradovic A, et al. Single-cell protein activity analysis identifies recurrence-associated renal tumor macrophages. Cell 2021;184(11):2988–3005.e16.

Ethics Approval

This clinical trial [in Reference 6] was approved by the IRBs at the University of Carolina at Chapel Hill (Office of Human Research Ethics) and MD Anderson (Office of Human Subjects Protection), and the research was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki principles. All participants provided written informed consent before the initiation of any research procedures.The studies were conducted in accordance with the guidelines approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols, AAAO5706 and AAAA9967, respectively. Patients provided consent prior to taking part in the study. This is the clinical data take from the study in reference 7.All other studies referenced in the above abstract were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki principles under a protocol approved by the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) Institutional Review Board (protocol no. 151549). Informed consent was received from all patients before inclusion in the study by the Cooperative Human Tissue Network at VUMC. This is the clinical data take from the study in reference 3 and 7All mouse procedures were performed under Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)-approved protocols from VUMC and conformed to all relevant regulatory standards. The mouse protocol ID is 19000125

633 Incorporating checkpoint inhibitors into cancer care: a study of the impact of digital education on clinical competence and practice patterns

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape for a variety of tumors and have significantly improved patient prognosis and longevity. Evolving practice standards for diagnostic testing and extensive emerging clinical trial data have left clinicians challenged to apply newer treatments in practice and manage associated side effects. Additionally, improved patient prognosis has created a greater need for survivorship care plans; clinicians must be able to tailor plans to the needs of patients treated with these agents. Education pertaining to biomarker testing, applications of checkpoint inhibitors, adverse event management, and survivorship care is critical to ability to improve patient experience and quality of life.

Methods

A 4-hour CME activity was broadcast live-online in June, July, and August 2020 and remained on-demand through February 2021 at OMedLive.com. The program was provided in partnership with the Society for Immunotherapy in Cancer (SITC). The initiative was divided into themes including biomarker usage for checkpoint inhibitor selection, adverse event management, survivorship care, and use of checkpoint inhibitors and combination therapies in the metastatic setting. Knowledge and competence questions were administered pre-, immediate post-, and 2 mos. post-activity. Behavioral impact questions were also asked at follow-up. Data from these questions were analyzed to determine engagement and clinical impact.

Results

Final program results from 1,909 learners showed that post-activity engagement resulted in 61% reporting a positive impact on patient experience, and 74% reporting a positive impact on clinical practice, with 179 qualitative write-in examples detailing improvements in diagnosis, use of newer therapies, ability to manage adverse events, and patients' tolerance of treatments. All 14 CME test questions reflected statistically significant improvements on biomarker utility, checkpoint inhibitors, combination therapy applications, adverse event management, and survivorship care, with an average of 15% pre to 2-month follow-up improvement. The overall average effect size from pre- to post-test was d = 1.27, and d = 0.429 for pre- to 2-month follow-up point. Practice pattern questions elucidated preferences for biomarker testing, challenges of integrating immunotherapy, areas of difficulty in survivorship care, and challenges enrolling in clinical trials.

Conclusions

The activity was successful in improving clinician understanding of the use of biomarker testing to determine treatment plans, applications of checkpoint inhibitors and combination therapies, adverse event management, and survivorship care planning. Open-ended responses to behavioral impact questions illustrated clear improvements in clinician-reported patient impacts, including improved psychological tolerance of treatment, quality of life, and overall wellness.

349 Tolerability of tivozanib vs. sorafenib in elderly and/or immunotherapy-pretreated patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) in TIVO-3

Background

The TIVO-3 trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) with TIVO when compared to sorafenib (SOR; 5.6 mo. vs 3.9 mo., respectively; HR 0.73) and better tolerability with reduced need for dose interruptions (p = 0.0164), dose reductions (p = 0.0147), and discontinuations< sup >1</sup >. As the majority of patients diagnosed with mRCC in the US are >65 years, with the largest recent increase in incidence among those ≥75, and front-line treatment now standardly includes immunotherapy (IO), tolerability of new therapies for relapsed or refractory (R/R) mRCC must be acceptable in the elderly and/or IO pretreated population

Methods

Data was analyzed to identify relationships between tolerability and advanced age or IO pretreatment. In addition to measures of drug exposure, any grade ≥3 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) and VEFGR TKI class effect grade ≥3 TRAEs are reported by age (<65, 65–74, ≥75) and prior IO (yes, no)

Results

Of the 343 patients treated on study, 120 (35%) were between age 65 and 75 and 34 (10%) were over 75. Patients received 1.5-2x more cycles of TIVO compared to SOR and fewer overall grade ≥3 TRAEs in all age groups and irrespective of prior IO. Differences in VEGFR TKI class effect TRAEs seen in the total population were retained across most subgroups (table 1). Among patients 75 and over, there were almost half the rate of the dose reductions or discontinuations with TIVO compared to SOR. Prior IO was associated with less asthenia overall, more HTN with TIVO, and more rash but less diarrhea with SOR

Abstract 349 Table 1

Drug exposure, dose modifications, and TRAEs in TIVO-3 by age and prior IO

Conclusions

Tolerability benefits with TIVO compared to SOR in mRCC are retained in elderly patients and those previously treated with IO. This finding, paired with consistently improved PFS in these subpopulations (age >65: HR 0.59, prior IO: HR 0.55), suggests TIVO is a safe and effective option in the context of the current R/R mRCC treatment paradigm

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials

gov Identifier: NCT02627963

Reference

Rini B, Pal S, Escudier B, Atkins M, Hutson T, et al. Tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TIVO-3): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label study. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:95–104

Ethics Approval

This trial was approved by the institutional review board or ethics committee at every centre and complied with Good Clinical Practice guidelines, the Declaration of Helsinki, and local laws. All patients provided written informed consent before any trial procedure. The trial protocol including the relevant centres is provided in the appendix of the reference 1

731 Concurrent immunotherapy and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition among patients with solid tumors

Background

Durable remissions are possible for patients with solid tumors treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (IO); however, response rates remain relatively low. Recent preclinical data with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), widely used for diabetes management, have shown synergistic anti-tumor activity with IO in mouse models.1 2 However, there are no currently available data on concurrent use of DPP4i among patients treated with IO.

Methods

We performed a retrospective, IRB-approved, review of all patients with solid tumors treated with IO at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and concurrent DDP4i treatment for diabetes mellitus through review of the electronic medical record. Inclusion criteria required patients were to be on DPP4i at the start of IO treatment. The cutoff date was June 22, 2021. Outcomes measured were objective response rate (ORR), time on treatment, time to next treatment (TTNT), immune-related adverse events (iRAE), and overall survival (OS). All patients were included in the toxicity analysis; however, patients treated in the adjuvant setting, those without measurable radiographic disease, and those without available post-treatment scan were excluded from the response analysis.

Results

In total, 34 patients were identified on concurrent IO plus DPP4i. The most common tumor types were melanoma (29%), renal cell carcinoma (21%), and non-small cell lung cancer (21%). Pembrolizumab was the most common IO agent (47%), followed by nivolumab (41%), ipilimumab (15%), atezolizumab (6%), and durvalumab (3%). Sitaglipitin (74%) was the most common DPP4i, followed by linagliptin (18%), saxagliptin (6%), and alogliptin (3%). 14/34 patients (41%) developed any grade IRAE while on treatment with 6/34 (18%) requiring discontinuation of IO. Of the 26 patients who met inclusion criteria for the response analysis, 18 (69%) had PR or CR, 4 (15%) had stable disease, and 4 (15%) had PD as best response (figure 1). The median follow-up time was 19.0 months (IQR: 11–25.2) and the median time on treatment was 10.1 months (95 CI: 4.9–14.5). The median TTNT was 23.9 months (95% CI:10.7–34.5) and median OS was 31.4 months (95% CI: 21.0-NE).

Conclusions

This analysis represents the first data on concurrent DPP4i with IO in the treatment of solid tumors. While the cohort for response analysis was small, the ORR was high. Prospective evaluation of IO plus DPP4-i is needed to determine potential clinical efficacy of this combination.

References

Barreira da Silva R, Laird ME, Yatim N, Fiette L, Ingersoll MA, Albert ML. Dipeptidylpeptidase 4 inhibition enhances lymphocyte trafficking, improving both naturally occurring tumor immunity and immunotherapy. Nat Immunol 2015;16(8):850–858. doi:10.1038/ni.3201.

Hollande C, Boussier J, Ziai J, et al. Inhibition of the dipeptidyl peptidase DPP4 (CD26) reveals IL-33-dependent eosinophil-mediated control of tumor growth. Nat Immunol. 2019;20(3):257–264. doi:10.1038/s41590-019-0321-5

Ethics Approval

Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board approved this study under “exempt” status (IRB# 202314). All patient information was de-identified and secured.

Abstract 731 Figure 1

Swimmers plot. An illustration of clinical events for 26 patients treated with concurrent checkpoint inhibitor (IO) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i). The timeline begins on the date of IO initiation. Each subject is represented along the y axis, with various symbols noting events such as Partial Response (PR), Complete Response (CR), start date of next line of therapy, continued response, or death. Duration of follow up ended with either patient death or study completion (6/22/21)

Association between prior nephrectomy and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint-inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy is the standard of care for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). It is unclear whether prior removal of the primary tumor influences the efficacy of these treatments. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of first-line ICI in mRCC to determine whether the efficacy of ICI-therapy, compared to sunitinib, is altered based on receipt of prior nephrectomy.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed studies indexed in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Scopus and conference abstracts from relevant medical societies as of August 2020 to identify randomized clinical trials assessing first-line immunotherapy-based regimes in mRCC. Studies were included if overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes were reported with data stratified by nephrectomy status. We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by nephrectomy status and performed random effects meta-analysis to assess the null hypothesis of no difference in the survival advantage of immunotherapy-based regimes based on nephrectomy status, while accounting for study level correlations.

RESULTS

Among 6 randomized clinical trials involving 5,121 patients, 3,968 (77%) had undergone prior nephrectomy. We found an overall survival benefit for immunotherapy-based regimes, compared to sunitinib, among both patients who had undergone nephrectomy (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 -0.88) and those who had not (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 -0.92), without evidence of difference based on nephrectomy history (P = 0.70; I² = 36%). Results assessing PFS were similar (P = 0.45, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical data suggest that prior nephrectomy does not affect the efficacy of ICI-based regimens in mRCC relative to sunitinib.

RAMPART: A model for a regulatory-ready academic-led phase III trial in the adjuvant renal cell carcinoma setting

The development of therapeutics in oncology is a highly active research area for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, but also has a strong academic base. Many new agents have been developed in recent years, most with specific biological targets. This has mandated the need to look at different ways to streamline the evaluation of new agents. One solution has been the development of adaptive trial designs that allow the evaluation of multiple agents, concentrating on the most promising agents while screening out those which are unlikely to benefit patients. Another way forward has been the growth of partnerships between academia and industry with the shared goal of designing and conducting high quality clinical trials which answer important clinical questions as efficiently as possible. The RAMPART trial (NCT03288532) brings together both of these processes in an attempt to improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), where no globally acceptable adjuvant strategy after nephrectomy currently exist. RAMPART is led by the MRC CTU at University College London (UCL), in collaboration with other international academic groups and industry. We aim to facilitate the use of data from RAMPART, (dependent on outcomes), for a future regulatory submission that will extend the license of the agents being investigated. We share our experience in order to lay the foundations for an effective trial design and conduct framework and to guide others who may be considering similar collaborations. Trial Registration: ISRCTN #: ISRCTN53348826, NCT #: NCT03288532, EUDRACT #: 2017-002329-39. CTA #: 20363/0380/001-0001. MREC #: 17/LO/1875. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03288532 RAMPART grant number: MC_UU_12023/25. . RAMPART Protocol version 5.0.

RAMPART: A phase III multi-arm multi-stage trial of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitors in patients with resected primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high or intermediate risk of relapse

BACKGROUND

20-60% of patients with initially locally advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) develop metastatic disease despite optimal surgical excision. Adjuvant strategies have been tested in RCC including cytokines, radiotherapy, hormones and oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs), with limited success. The predominant global standard-of-care after nephrectomy remains active monitoring. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective in the treatment of metastatic RCC; RAMPART will investigate these agents in the adjuvant setting.

METHODS/DESIGN

RAMPART is an international, UK-led trial investigating the addition of ICIs after nephrectomy in patients with resected locally advanced RCC. RAMPART is a multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) platform trial, upon which additional research questions may be addressed over time. The target population is patients with histologically proven resected locally advanced RCC (clear cell and non-clear cell histological subtypes), with no residual macroscopic disease, who are at high or intermediate risk of relapse (Leibovich score 3-11). Patients with fully resected synchronous ipsilateral adrenal metastases are included. Participants are randomly assigned (3,2:2) to Arm A - active monitoring (no placebo) for one year, Arm B - durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) 4-weekly for one year; or Arm C - combination therapy with durvalumab 4-weekly for one year plus two doses of tremelimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) at day 1 of the first two 4-weekly cycles. The co-primary outcomes are disease-free-survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes include safety, metastasis-free survival, RCC specific survival, quality of life, and patient and clinician preferences. Tumour tissue, plasma and urine are collected for molecular analysis (TransRAMPART).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN #: ISRCTN53348826, NCT #: NCT03288532, EUDRACT #: 2017-002329-39, CTA #: 20363/0380/001-0001, MREC #: 17/LO/1875, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03288532, RAMPART grant number: MC_UU_12023/25, TransRAMPART grant number: A28690 Cancer Research UK, RAMPART Protocol version 5.0.

Outcomes in Black and White Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With First-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Insights From Two Large Cohorts

PURPOSE

To investigate whether black race is an independent predictor of overall survival (OS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective 2-cohort (International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium [IMDC] and trial-database) study of patients with mRCC treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Unmatched (UM) and matched (M) analyses accounting for imbalances in region, year of treatment, age, and sex between races were performed. Cox models adjusting for histology, number of metastatic sites, nephrectomy, and IMDC risk compared time to treatment failure (TTF; IMDC cohort), progression-free survival (PFS; trial-database cohort), and OS.

RESULTS

The IMDC cohort included 73 black versus 3,381 (UM) and 1,236 (M) white patients. The trial-database cohort included 21 black versus 1,040 (UM) and 431 (M) white patients. Median OS for black versus white patients was 18.5 versus 25.8 months in the IMDC group and 21.0 versus 25.6 months in the trial-database group. Differences in OS were not significant in multivariable analysis in the IMDC group (hazard ratio [HR]_M, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.5; HR_UM, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.4) and trial-database (HR_M, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.7; HR_UM, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.6) cohorts. TTF for black patients was shorter in the UM IMDC cohort (HR_UM, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8; P = .003), but not in the M analysis. PFS was shorter for black patients in both analyses in the trial-database cohort (HR_M, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9; P = .002; HR_UM, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Black patients had more IMDC risk factors and worse outcomes with TKIs versus white patients. Race was not an independent predictor of OS. Strategies to understand biologic determinants of outcomes for minority patients are needed to optimize care.

Abstract CT243: A phase 1b/2 umbrella study of investigational immune and targeted combination therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who progressed on PD-1/L1 and VEGF inhibitors

Background: PD-1/L1-based combination regimens are the standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC); however, there is no standard of care in the postimmunooncology/post-VEGF patient population, resulting in a high-unmet need. This umbrella platform study is an open-label, rolling-arm, multicenter phase 1b/2 trial in advanced ccRCC with an adaptive design that will evaluate safety and efficacy of experimental combinations of investigational agents targeting various mechanisms of action such as CTLA-4 (quavonlimab [MK-1308]), HIF-2α (belzutifan [MK-6482]), LAG-3 (MK-4280), ILT4 (MK-4830), PD-1 (pembrolizumab) and VEGF-TKI (lenvatinib). Substudy 03B (NCT04626518) will evaluate patients who progressed on PD-1/L1 inhibitors and VEGF-TKIs. Given the promising results of the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-146 study, pembrolizumab (400 mg IV Q6W) in combination with lenvatinib (20 mg orally QD) will be used as the reference arm.

Methods: Patients will be aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed diagnosis of ccRCC and KPS ≥70, and experience progression on or after having received treatment with a PD-1/L1 inhibitor and a VEGF-TKI (in sequence or in combination), as defined by RECIST v1.1). Progression on PD-1/L1 inhibitors is defined as receiving 2 doses of treatment, demonstrating radiographic disease progression per RECIST v1.1, and having documented disease progression within 12 weeks of last dose. The study will comprise a safety lead-in phase for experimental combinations with investigational agents without an established recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) followed by an efficacy phase. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to an experimental arm (approximately 50 pts per arm) or the reference arm. If more than 1 experimental arm is open for enrollment, the pts in the reference arm can be shared. Experimental arms are pembrolizumab (400 mg Q6W IV) + belzutifan (MK-6482, 120 mg orally QD); lenvatinib (20 mg orally QD) + belzutifan (120 mg orally QD); MK-1308A (coformulation of quavonlimab 25 mg and pembrolizumab 400 mg IV Q6W); MK-4280A (coformulation of MK-4280 800 mg and pembrolizumab 200 mg IV Q3W); and pembrolizumab (200 mg IV Q3W) + MK-4830 (800 mg IV Q3W). Treatments will continue until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Stratification factors are IMDC risk group (favorable, intermediate, or poor) and use of a CTLA-4 inhibitor (yes vs no). Primary end points for safety lead-in phase (if applicable) are safety and tolerability to establish an RP2D; co-primary end points for efficacy phase are safety and objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points during the efficacy phase are duration of response, progression-free survival, and clinical benefit rate per RECIST v1.1 (BICR), and overall survival.

Citation Format: Hans Hammers, Toni Choueiri, Elizabeth Plimack, Brian Rini, Robert Motzer, Lina Yin, Rodolfo Perini, Jaqueline Willemann-Rogerio, Laurence Albiges. A phase 1b/2 umbrella study of investigational immune and targeted combination therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who progressed on PD-1/L1 and VEGF inhibitors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT243.

Summary from the Kidney Cancer Association's Inaugural Think Thank: Coalition for a Cure

Close to 74,000 cases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are diagnosed each year in the United States. The past 2 decades have shown great developments in surgical techniques, targeted therapy and immunotherapy agents, and longer complete response rates. However, without a global cure, there is still room for further advancement in improving patient care in this space. To address some of the gaps restricting this progress, the Kidney Cancer Association brought together a group of 27 specialists across the areas of clinical care, research, industry, and advocacy at the inaugural "Think Tank: Coalition for a Cure" session. Topics addressed included screening, imaging, rarer RCC subtypes, combination drug therapy options, and patient response. This commentary summarizes the discussion of these topics and their respective clinical challenges, along with a proposal of projects for collaboration in overcoming those needs and making a greater impact on care for patients with RCC moving forward.