Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Angioprevention of Urologic Cancers by Plant-Derived Foods

The number of cancer cases worldwide keeps growing unstoppably, despite the undeniable advances achieved by basic research and clinical practice. Urologic tumors, including some as prevalent as prostate, bladder or kidney tumors, are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, the fact that many of these tumors are detected in early stages lengthens the duration of their treatment, with a significant increase in health care costs. In this scenario, prevention offers the most cost-effective long-term strategy for the global control of these diseases. Although specialized diets are not the only way to decrease the chances to develop cancer, epidemiological evidence support the role of certain plant-derived foods in the prevention of urologic cancer. In many cases, these plants are rich in antiangiogenic phytochemicals, which could be responsible for their protective or angiopreventive properties. Angiogenesis inhibition may contribute to slow down the progression of the tumor at very different stages and, for this reason, angiopreventive strategies could be implemented at different levels of chemoprevention, depending on the targeted population. In this review, epidemiological evidence supporting the role of certain plant-derived foods in urologic cancer prevention are presented, with particular emphasis on their content in bioactive phytochemicals that could be used in the angioprevention of cancer.

CircEHD2, CircNETO2 and CircEGLN3 as Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarkers for Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma

Simple Summary

Circular RNA (circRNA) plays an important role in cancer, but little is known about its role in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). The study was designed to analyze the role of circRNAs in ccRCC. We show that circEHD2, circENGLN3, and circNETO2 are upregulated in ccRCC compared with non-malignant renal tissue. Increased circEHD2 levels were significant and independent predictors of progression-free and cancer-specific survival of ccRCC patients. Thus, the analysis of circRNAs may be of diagnostic and prognostic relevance in patients with ccRCC.

Abstract

Background: Circular RNA (circRNA) plays an important role in the carcinogenesis of various tumors. It is assumed that circRNAs have a high tissue and tumor specificity, thus they are discussed as cancer biomarkers. The knowledge about circRNAs in clear cell renal carcinoma (ccRCC) is limited so far, and thus we studied the expression profile of seven circRNAs (circCOL5A1, circEHD2, circEDEM2, circEGNL3, circNETO2, circSCARB1, circSOD2) in a cohort of ccRCC patients. Methods: Fresh-frozen normal and cancerous tissues were prospectively collected from patients with ccRCC undergoing partial/radical nephrectomy. Total RNA was isolated from 121 ccRCC and 91 normal renal tissues, and the circRNA expression profile was determined using quantitative real-time PCR. Results: circEHD2, circENGLN3, and circNETO2 were upregulated in ccRCC compared with non-malignant renal tissue. circENGLN3 expression was highly discriminative between normal and cancerous tissue. None of the circRNAs was correlated with clinicopathological parameters. High circEHD2 and low circNETO2 levels were an independent predictor of a shortened progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival in patients with ccRCC undergoing nephrectomy. Conclusions: The analysis of circRNAs may provide diagnostic and prognostic information. Thus, circRNAs could help to optimize the individual treatment and ultimately improve ccRCC patients’ survival.

Immunology and Immunotherapeutic Approaches for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a malignant tumor associated with various tumor microenvironments (TMEs). The immune system is activated by the development of cancer and drives T cell anti-tumor response. CD8 T cells are known to improve clinical outcomes and sensitivity to immunotherapy, and play a crucial role against tumors. In contrast, tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) suppress immunity against malignancy and lead to tumor progression. TAMs are promoted from damaged TMEs and mount proinflammatory responses to pathogens. Initial immunotherapy consists of interferon-α and interleukin-2. However, response to such therapy is unclear in most patients, and it is associated with high levels of toxicity. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which up-regulate immune responses by blocking the programed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor, the ligand of PD-1, or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 T cells, have led to a new era of immunotherapy. Furthermore, combination strategies with ICIs have proven effective through several randomized controlled trials. We expect the next generation of immunotherapy to lead to better outcomes based on ongoing trials and inspire new therapeutic strategies.

Targeting the Deterministic Evolutionary Trajectories of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

The emergence of clinical resistance to currently available systemic therapies forces us to rethink our approach to clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). The ability to influence ccRCC evolution by inhibiting processes that propel it or manipulating its course may be an adequate strategy. There are seven deterministic evolutionary trajectories of ccRCC, which correlate with clinical phenotypes. We suspect that each trajectory has its own unique weaknesses that could be exploited. In this review, we have summarized recent advances in the treatment of ccRCC and demonstrated how to improve systemic therapies from the evolutionary perspective. Since there are only a few evolutionary trajectories in ccRCC, it appears feasible to use them as potential biomarkers for guiding intervention and surveillance. We believe that the presented patient stratification could help predict future steps of malignant progression, thereby informing optimal and personalized clinical decisions.

Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants.  3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants.  4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.