Emerging molecular classification in renal cell carcinoma: implications for drug development

Rationale for immune checkpoint inhibitors plus targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a frequent urological malignancy characterized by a high rate of metastasis and lethality. The treatment strategy for advanced RCC has moved through multiple iterations over the past three decades. Initially, cytokine treatment was the only systemic treatment option for patients with RCC. With the development of medicine, antiangiogenic agents targeting vascular endothelial growth factor and mammalian target of rapamycin and immunotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged and received several achievements in the therapeutics of advanced RCC. However, ICIs have still not brought completely satisfactory results due to drug resistance and undesirable side effects. For the past years, the interests form researchers have been attracted by the combination of ICIs and targeted therapy for advanced RCC and the angiogenesis and immunogenic tumor microenvironmental variations in RCC. Therefore, we emphasize the potential principle and the clinical progress of ICIs combined with targeted treatment of advanced RCC, and summarize the future direction.

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.

What can molecular pathology contribute to the management of renal cell carcinoma?

The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasing and outcomes remain poor. One-third of patients with localized disease will relapse, and 5-year survival for patients with metastatic disease is less than 10%. No molecular test is currently available to identify which patients who have undergone 'curative' surgery will relapse, and which patients will respond to targeted therapy. Some well characterized biochemical pathways, such as those associated with von Hippel-Lindau disease, are aberrantly regulated in RCC and are associated with histological subtype, but the understanding of these pathways contributes little to the clinical management of patients with RCC. Gene expression and sequencing studies have increased our understanding of the genetic basis of the disease but have failed to establish any unified classification to improve molecular stratification or to predict which patients are likely to relapse or respond to targeted therapy. Instead, they have served to highlight that RCC is heterogeneous at histological, morphological, and molecular levels, and that novel approaches are required to resolve the complexity of RCC prognostication and prediction of treatment response.

Targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Advanced renal cell carcinoma has been resistant to drug therapy of different types and new types of drug therapy are needed. Targeted agents inhibit known molecular pathways involved in cellular proliferation and neoangiogenesis, the induction by the tumour of host microvascular networks. Angiogenesis is of special interest in the clear cell histologic subtype of renal cancer because of its vascularity and constitutively activated hypoxia-inducible path in the majority of tumours.

OBJECTIVES

1) To provide a systematic review of studies testing targeted agents.2) To identify the type and degree of clinical benefit, if any, of targeted agents over the prior standard of care, particularly any impact on overall survival.

SEARCH STRATEGY

1) Electronic search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases.2) Hand search of international cancer meeting abstract and other sources specified in the protocol.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled studies of targeted agents in patients with advanced renal cell cancer reporting major remission rate or overall survival by allocation. Progression-free survival (PFS) was adopted as an additional outcome because PFS was a commonly chosen primary outcome, and because several pivotal studies allowed crossover from the control to the investigational arm after closure to accrual thereby making overall survival a problematic endpoint.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Nineteen fully eligible studies tested ten different targeted agents (Table 04). One additional study was excluded because no outcome data by allocation have been reported (Hutson 2007). For purposes of comparison, the studies were divided into three groups: Group 1 studies compared different doses of the same agents; Group 2 studies examined the impact of targeted agents in patients who had received prior cytokine or other systemic therapy; and Group 3 studies tested targeted agents in systemically naive patients, either against standard interferon-alfa or against another control therapy. Meta-analysis was not utilized because there were very few situations where the same agents had been tested in the same group in more than one study.

MAIN RESULTS

In systemically untreated patients in studies using subcutaneous interferon-alfa as control therapy, the major findings were: 1) An improvement in overall survival has been demonstrated only with the use of weekly intravenous temsirolimus in patients with unselected renal cancer histology and adverse prognostic features (median survival 10.9 months versus 7.3 months for temsirolimus or interferon-alfa respectively, HR 0.73, P = 0.008 log rank, Hudes 2007). However, the chance of major remission was low and not improved with temsirolimus. 2) In patients with mostly good or intermediate prognostic risk with clear cell renal cancer, oral sunitinib improves the chance of major remission, the probability of symptomatic improvement, and freedom from disease progression (Motzer 2007); in a similar setting, the addition of biweekly intravenous bevacizumab to interferon-alfa also improved the chance of major remission and prolonged progression-free survival (Escudier 2007b); overall survival had not changed at the time of interim reporting of either study. In patients with clear cell renal cancers who had failed prior cytokine therapy, oral sorafenib gives a better quality of life than placebo as well as improved chance of being free of disease progression; overall survival may have improved but is hard to evaluate because of crossover of placebo-assigned patients after the study closed to accrual (Escudier 2007a).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on less than a decade of experience, some targeted agents with specified molecular targets have demonstrated clinically useful benefits over the previous standard of care for patients with advanced renal cancer. Much more research is required to fully establish the role of targeted agents in this condition.