660P Phase III CLEAR trial in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Outcomes in subgroups and toxicity update

Implications of bone metastasis on response to systemic therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: A systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Bone metastases negatively affect prognosis in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We conducted a systematic literature review to identify clinical trial publications including patients with aRCC with and without bone metastases.

METHODS

The review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022355436). MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched (September 2, 2022) to identify publications reporting efficacy and safety outcomes for patients with/without bone metastasis from clinical trials of systemic RCC therapies. Risk of bias was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Of 526 publications screened, 19 were eligible: seven (from five studies) reported phase 3 trials, six reported phase 2 trials, one reported phase 1b/2 trials, and five were pooled analyses. Five publications reported moderate-quality evidence, while 14 were graded as low- or very low-quality evidence, suggesting a high potential for uncertainty. Five studies reported benefits of investigational therapies versus comparators in patients with and without bone metastases; these studies included cabozantinib, nivolumab, cabozantinib plus nivolumab, and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab treatment arms. Data were also available for nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Bone metastases were consistently associated with poor prognosis in patients with aRCC. Preliminary data support the hypothesis that therapies targeting pathways implicated in the development of bone metastases may be beneficial, and warrant further investigation. However, data to support treatment decision-making are lacking.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the need for clinical data to assist in defining the optimal treatment for patients with aRCC and bone metastasis.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression.

Objectives

The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Methods

The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Results

The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Conclusions

Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

(Bio)marqueurs de « routine » dans le cancer du rein métastatique

Routine (bio)markers in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Treatment Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma With Sarcomatoid and/or Rhabdoid Dedifferentiation After Progression on Immune Checkpoint Therapy

BACKGROUND

Metastatic RCC with sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid (S/R) dedifferentiation is an aggressive disease associated with improved response to immune checkpoint therapy (ICT). The outcomes of patients treated with VEGFR-targeted therapies (TT) following ICT progression have not been investigated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of 57 patients with sarcomatoid (S), rhabdoid (R), or sarcomatoid plus rhabdoid (S + R) dedifferentiation who received any TT after progression on ICT at an academic cancer center. Clinical endpoints of interest included time on TT, overall survival (OS) from initiation of TT, and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST version 1.1. Multivariable models adjusted for epithelial histology, IMDC risk, prior VEGFR TT, and inclusion of cabozantinib in the post-ICT TT regimen.

RESULTS

29/57 patients had S dedifferentiation and 19 had R dedifferentiation. The most frequently used TT was cabozantinib (43.9%) followed by selective VEGFR TT (22.8%). The median time on TT was 6.4 months for all, 6.1 months for those with S dedifferentiation, 15.6 months for R dedifferentiation, and 6.1 months for S + R dedifferentiation. Median OS from initiation of TT was 24.9 months for the entire cohort, and the ORR was 20.0%. Patients with R dedifferentiation had significantly longer time on TT than those with S dedifferentiation (HR 0.44, 95% CI, 0.21-0.94). IMDC risk was associated with OS.

CONCLUSIONS

A subset of patients with S/R dedifferentiation derive clinical benefit from TT after they have progressive disease on ICT. Patients with R dedifferentiation appeared to derive more benefit from TT than those with S dedifferentiation.

Circulating tumor cells as a predictor and prognostic tool for metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma: An immunocytochemistry and genomic analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatment of metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma (mccRCC) has changed dramatically over the past 20 years, without improvement in the development of biomarkers. Recently, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been validated as a prognostic and predictive tool for many solid tumors.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated CTCs in blood samples obtained from patients diagnosed with mccRCC. Comparisons of CTC counts, protein expression profiling, and DNA mutants were made in relation to overall survival and progression-free survival.

METHODS

CTCs were isolated from 10 mL blood samples using the ISET® system (Isolation by SizE of Tumor Cells; Rarecells, France) and counted. Protein expression was evaluated in immunocytochemistry assays. DNA mutations were identified with next generation sequencing (NGS).

RESULTS

Blood samples (10 mL) were collected from 12 patients with mccRCC before the start of first-line systemic therapy, and again 30 and 60 days after the start of treatment. All 12 patients had CTCs detected at baseline (median, 1.5 CTCs/mL; range: 0.25-7.75). Patients with CTC counts greater than the median had two or more metastatic sites and exhibited worse progression-free survival (19.7 months) compared to those with CTC counts less than the median (31.1 months). Disease progression was observed in 7/12 patients during the study. Five of these patients had baseline CTC counts greater than the median, one had higher CTC levels at the second blood collection, and one patient had CTCs present at 1 CTC/mL which positively stained for PD-L1, N-cadherin, VEGF, and SETD2. CTC DNA from six patients with worse outcomes was subjected to NGS. However, no conclusions could be made due to the low variant allele frequencies.

CONCLUSION

Detection of CTCs in patients with mccRCC receiving first-line treatment is a feasible tool with prognostic potential since increased numbers of CTCs were found to be associated with metastasis and disease progression.

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.

Triplet Strategies in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Worthy Option in the First-Line Setting?

Significant strides have been made in the frontline treatment of patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). There are multiple standard-of-care doublet regimens consisting of either the combined dual immune checkpoint inhibitors, ipilimumab and nivolumab, or combinations of a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor and an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Currently, there is an emergence of clinical trials examining triplet combinations. In COSMIC-313, a randomized phase III trial for patients with untreated advanced ccRCC, the triplet combination of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and cabozantinib was compared with a contemporary control arm of ipilimumab and nivolumab. While patients receiving the triplet regimen demonstrated improved progression-free survival, these patients also experienced greater toxicity and the overall survival data are still maturing. In this article, we discuss the role of doublet therapy as standard of care, the current data available for the promise of triplet therapy, the rationale to continue pursuing trials with triplet combinations, and factors for clinicians and patients to consider when choosing among frontline treatments. We present ongoing trials with an adaptive design that may serve as alternative methods for escalating from doublet to triplet regimens in the frontline setting and explore clinical factors and emerging predictive biomarkers (both baseline and dynamic) that may guide future trial design and frontline treatment for patients with advanced ccRCC.

Prognostic and predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma

The therapeutic algorithm of renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionized by the approval of immunotherapy agents by regulatory agencies. However, objective and durable responses are still not observed in a large number of patients, and prognostic and predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy response are urgently needed. Prognostic models used in clinical practice are based on clinical and laboratory factors (such as hypercalcaemia, neutrophil count or Karnofsky Performance Status), but, with progress in molecular biology and genome sequencing techniques, new renal cell carcinoma molecular features that might improve disease course and outcomes prediction have been highlighted. An implementation of current models is needed to improve the accuracy of prognosis in the immuno-oncology era. Moreover, several potential biomarkers are currently under evaluation, but effective markers to select patients who might benefit from immunotherapy and to guide therapeutic strategies are still far from validation.

The role of immunotherapy in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma

The category of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) includes several clinically, histologically, and molecularly diverse entities. Traditionally, they comprise type 1 and type 2 papillary, chromophobe, unclassified, and other histologies (medullary, collecting duct carcinoma, and translocation-associated). Molecular knowledge has allowed the identification of some other specific subtypes, such as fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or succinate dehydrogenase-associated RCC. In addition, it has recognized some alterations with a possible predictive role, e.g., MET proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase (MET) alterations in papillary tumors. Standard therapies for the management of advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC), i.e., vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) pathway inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, have shown poorer results in nccRCC patients. Therefore, there is a need to improve the efficacy of the treatment for advanced nccRCC. Immunotherapy, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), has demonstrated a significant survival benefit in several malignant neoplasias, including ccRCC, with a proportion of patients achieving long survival. The combinations of ICI or ICI + VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the standard of care in advanced ccRCC. Unfortunately, major pivotal trials did not include specific nccRCC populations. In recent years, several studies have retrospectively or prospectively evaluated ICIs alone or in combination with another ICI or with TKIs in nccRCC patients. In this article, we review data from available trials in order to elucidate clinical and molecular profiles that could benefit from immunotherapy approaches.

Contemporary Drug Therapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma- Evidence Accumulation and Histological Implications in Treatment Strategy

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a heterogeneous disease comprising a variety of histological subtypes. Approximately 70-80% of RCC cases are clear cell carcinoma (ccRCC), while the remaining subtypes constitute non-clear cell carcinoma (nccRCC). The medical treatment of RCC has greatly changed in recent years through advances in molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Most of the novel systemic therapies currently available have been approved based on ccRCC clinical trial data. nccRCC can be subdivided into more than 40 histological subtypes that have distinct clinical, histomorphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features. These entities are listed as emerging in the 2022 World Health Organization classification. The diagnosis of nccRCC and treatments based on cancer histology and biology remain challenging due to the disease's rarity. We reviewed clinical trials focused on recent discoveries regarding clinicopathological features.

The significance of sarcomatoid and rhabdoid dedifferentiation in renal cell carcinoma

Dedifferentiation in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), either sarcomatoid or rhabdoid, is an infrequent event that may occur heterogeneously in the setting of any RCC histology and is associated with poor outcomes. Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is associated with inferior survival with angiogenesis targeted therapy and infrequent responses to cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, immune checkpoint therapy has significantly improved outcomes for patients with sarcomatoid dedifferentiation. Biologically, sarcomatoid dedifferentiation has increased programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and an inflamed tumor microenvironment, in addition to other distinct molecular alterations. Less is known about rhabdoid dedifferentiation from either a clinical, biological, or therapeutic perspective. In this focused review, we will discuss the prognostic implications, outcomes with systemic therapy, and underlying biology in RCC with either sarcomatoid or rhabdoid dedifferentiation present.

Evolving landscape of first-line combination therapy in advanced renal cancer: a systematic review

Background:

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a common malignancy with approximately 30% of cases diagnosed at the advanced or metastatic stage. While single-agent vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy has been a mainstay of treatment, data from multiple phase III trials assessing first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations have demonstrated a significant survival benefit.

Methods:

A systematic search of the published and presented literature was performed to identify phase III trials assessing ICI combination regimens in RCC using search terms ‘immune checkpoint inhibitors’ AND ‘renal cell carcinoma,’ AND ‘advanced’.

Results:

Six phase III trials showed significant benefits for ICI combinations compared with sunitinib. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly improved overall survival [OS; median, 47.0 versus 26.6 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.58–0.81, p < 0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS; median 11.6 versus 8.3 months, HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.61–0.87, p = 0.0004) in International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate and poor-risk patients. OS was also significantly improved for ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations regardless of risk, including pembrolizumab plus either axitinib (HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.60–0.88, p < 0.001) or lenvatinib (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.49–0.88, p = 0.005) and nivolumab plus cabozantinib (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.50–0.87, p = 0.003). No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions:

Phase III first-line trials of ICI combinations showed survival benefits compared with a control arm of sunitinib. Global access to these combinations should be made available to patients with advanced RCC.

Metastatic renal cell cancer and first-line combinations: for which patients? (focus on tolerance and health-related quality of life)

Until recently, the first-line treatments used in metastatic renal cell carcinoma were based on first-generation anti-VEGFR (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) as monotherapy. Trials combining immunotherapy (IO) (anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1) or immunotherapy with TKIs showed striking results in the first-line setting with improvement in overall response rates, progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib. This allowed the combinations to gain registration in the US and Europe in the first-line advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma setting. However, this improved activity comes at the cost of increased toxicity. Immunotherapy-related toxicities usually occur earlier within the first six months. With immunotherapy came a new range of toxicities making it more necessary to work with networks of specialists to better address autoimmune toxicity in particular. The safety profile is also impacted by the type of TKI used. In most cases, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) favours combinations over the comparator sunitinib. This article aims to review and assess the safety and HRQoL data on these new combinations.

The Frontline Immunotherapy-Based Treatment of Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Current Evidence and Clinical Perspective

Approximately 400,000 patients are diagnosed with kidney cancer annually worldwide, leading to approximately 170,000 deaths. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for more than 90% of kidney cancers. The most common histological subtype is clear cell RCC, which is found in approximately 85% of metastatic RCC cases. The VHL-HIF-VEGF axis is well known; therefore, targeting VEGF has been the mainstay for managing advanced clear cell RCC. Recently, the treatment landscape for advanced clear cell RCC has changed extensively. In particular, immune checkpoint inhibitor-based treatment showed promising results in front-line treatment and became the standard of care. Herein, we review the current evidence on front-line treatment options and discuss the clinical and future perspective.

Risk Stratification and Treatment Algorithm of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma has continuously evolved over the last two decades. Significant improvements in overall survival and quality of life of patients with advanced disease have been observed. With the approval of combination therapies with PD(L)-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as first-line therapy in 2019, the previous standard VEGFR-TKI monotherapy has been replaced as the primary treatment option. In addition to immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, three VEGFR-TKI/ICI combinations are now approved. Therapy selection should be preceded by risk stratification using defined criteria from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC). Clinical parameters, as well as detailed patient counseling on differences in the efficacy profile (response rate, long-term progression-free survival), potential side effects, and impact on quality of life, are of key importance in the individual treatment decision.