Immunotherapy in Dialysis-Dependent Cancer Patients: Our Experience in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma and a Review of the Literature

Association Between Kidney Function and Outcomes Following Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Based Combination Therapy in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether kidney function affects outcomes following immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated data of 167 patients with advanced RCC, including 98 who received ICI dual combination therapy (ie, immunotherapy [IO]-IO) and 69 who received ICI combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (ie, IO-TKI). In each regimen, treatment profiles were assessed according to the grade of chronic kidney disease (CKD) as defined by the KDIGO 2012 criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 98 patients who received IO-IO, 31 (32%), 30 (31%), 15 (15%), and 22 (22%) had CKD G1/2, G3a, G3b, and G4/5, respectively. Of the 69 patients who received IO-TKI, 18 (26%), 25 (36%), and 26 (38%) had G1/2, G3a, and G3b/4/5, respectively. Regarding efficacy, progression-free survival, overall survival, or objective response rate was not different according to the CKD grade in both treatment groups (P > .05). Regarding safety, the rate of adverse events, treatment interruption, or corticosteroid administration was not different according to the CKD grade in the IO-IO group (P > .05), whereas in the IO-TKI group, the incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were significantly higher (P = .0292), and the rates of ICI interruption (P = .0353) and corticosteroid administration (P = .0685) increased, according to the CKD grade.

CONCLUSION

There is a differential safety but comparable efficacy profile between the IO-IO and IO-TKI regimens in patients with CKD. Further prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

Lack of Association Between Immunotherapy and Improvement of Survival for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Hemodialysis: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The number of patients undergoing hemodialysis continues to increase globally, and the incidence of cancer is high among these patients. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are widely used in patients with advanced cancer, especially non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, their effectiveness in hemodialysis patients is poorly documented.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from a nationwide database. Patients diagnosed with NSCLC, undergoing hemodialysis, and who started chemotherapy between September 2008 and January 2023 were included. In the intention to treat (ITT) analysis, patients were divided into immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and conventional chemotherapy group, and in the chronological analysis, patients were divided into 2 groups before and after ICI approval. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards analyses. A propensity score approach was applied to address confounding factors, and analyses were performed by weighting each patient with the inverse of the estimated propensity score.

RESULTS

We identified 322 and 389 patients in the ITT and chronological analyses respectively. In both analyses, there were no notable difference of OS between 2 groups (P values by log-rank test 0.933 and 0.248, respectively). The hazard ratios for OS were 0.980 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.678-1.415) in the ITT analysis and 0.805 (95% CI: 0.531-1.219) in the chronological analysis.

CONCLUSION

The ICI treatment and approval were not significantly associated with improvement of survival in patients with NSCLC undergoing hemodialysis.

Real-world outcomes of pembrolizumab for platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma: Efficacy, safety, and evidence for trial-unfit patients

Pembrolizumab, monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death 1, is widely used for platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC) patients. Although the survival benefit of pembrolizumab was proven in the well-designed phase III trial, these data represent only a part of patients due to strictly defined eligibility criteria. The patients' characteristics in the clinical practice are much more heterogenous than those of trial participants. The real-world experience is useful to validate the trial result and find suitable candidates for the treatment. Similarly, real-world data plays a significant role in addressing the efficacy and safety of special populations, such as poor performance status or older patients. This review summarizes the real-world evidence on pembrolizumab for platinum-refractory UCs and discusses the clinical risk factors and efficacy for trial-ineligible patients.

Systemic Treatment for Gynecological Cancer Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis

Gynecological cancer poses a serious threat to women's health. Chemotherapy-based systemic therapy plays a crucial role in the treatment of gynecological cancers. Many systemic therapeutic drugs are metabolized in the kidneys. Therefore, normal renal function is a prerequisite for gynecological tumor patients to complete the full course of systematic treatment and provide a guarantee for achieving an ideal prognosis. Chronic kidney disease often places restrictions on systematic treatment to different extents, such as influencing drug pharmacokinetics, increasing drug toxicity, and the risk of adverse drug reactions. Unfortunately, women undergoing renal replacement have a higher risk of developing gynecological cancers. This article summarizes the current knowledge on systemic treatment drugs for patients with gynecological cancer undergoing dialysis. We discuss the optimal choice of the systematic therapeutic protocol, administration of form and dosage, and window of chemotherapy during hemodialysis sessions to ensure both effectiveness and safety in gynecological cancer patients.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Therapeutic Combinations Based on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors or Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Monotherapy for First-Line Therapy of Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Outside of Clinical Trials: A Real-World Retrospective Multi-Institutional Study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have demonstrated the superior efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapy over sunitinib, a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. However, such benefits have not been elucidated in populations outside of clinical trials.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated data from 467 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received ICI-based combination therapy or TKIs, as first-line therapy. Clinical outcome was compared between ICI-based combination therapy and TKIs in each population divided according to trial eligibility.

RESULTS

Among 152 patients treated with ICI-based combination therapy and 315 patients treated with TKIs, 76 (50.0%) and 156 (49.5%) were trial ineligible, respectively. Overall survival (p = 0.0072) and objective response rate (p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in ICI-based combination therapy than in TKIs, but progression-free survival was comparable (p = 0.681). In the trial-eligible population, overall survival was longer (p = 0.0906) and the objective response rate was significantly higher (p = 0.0124) in ICI-based combination therapy than in TKIs. In the trial-ineligible population, overall survival (p = 0.0208) and objective response rate (p = 0.0006) were significantly higher with ICI-based combination therapy than with TKIs. A multivariate analysis also showed that ICI-based combination therapy was independently associated with prolonged overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.47; p = 0.0016). Regardless of trial eligibility, progression-free survival did not differ between ICI-based combination therapy and TKIs (trial eligible: p = 0.287; trial ineligible: p = 0.0708).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study, using real-world data, provides evidence indicating the therapeutic benefit of ICI-based combination therapy over TKIs for advanced renal cell carcinoma was more statistically significant in the trial-ineligible population than in the trial-eligible population.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and the Kidney: A Focus on Diagnosis and Management for Personalised Medicine

Immunity plays a crucial role in fighting cancer, but tumours can evade the immune system and proliferate and metastasize. Enhancing immune responses is a new challenge in anticancer therapies. In this context, efficacy data are accumulating on immune checkpoint inhibitors and adjuvant therapies for various types of advanced-stage solid tumours. Unfortunately, immune-related adverse events are common. Although infrequent, renal toxicity may occur via several mechanisms and may require temporary or permanent drug suspension, renal biopsy, and/or immunosuppressive treatment. This short review aims to provide a practical approach to the multidisciplinary management of cancer patients with renal toxicity during treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Renal Toxicities in Cancer Patients Receiving Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Meta-Analysis

Aim: We performed a meta-analysis of the available clinical trials of immune-checkpoint inhibitors to assess risk differences and relative risks of renal toxicity. Methods: 17 randomized phase III studies were selected, including 10,252 patients. Results: The administration of immune-checkpoint inhibitors resulted in an overall low-grade, high-grade and all-grade renal toxicity Risk Difference of: 0.746% (95% CI 0.629% to 1.15%, p < 0.001—random), 0.61% (95% CI, 0.292−0.929%, p < 0.001—fixed) and 1.2% (95% CI, 0.601−1.85%—random), respectively. The pooled Relative Risk of low-grade, high-grade and all-grade renal toxicity was: 2.185 (95% CI 1.515−3.152—fixed), 2.610 (95% CI, 1.409−4.833, p = 0.002—fixed) and 2.473 (95% CI, 1.782−3.431, p < 0.001—fixed), respectively. An increased risk of renal toxicity was evident in some subgroups more than others. Conclusion: Immune-checkpoint inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of renal toxicity.

Immunotherapy and the Spectrum of Kidney Disease: Should We Individualize the Treatment?

The new targeted cancer therapies including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been demonstrated to improve the survival of oncological patients, even in cases of metastatic cancer. In the past 5 years, several studies have revealed that ICI can produce several immune-mediated toxicities involving different organs, such as the skin, the gastrointestinal tract, the liver, and, of course, the kidney. The most frequent lesion of immunotoxicity in the kidney is acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), although other nephropathies have also been described as a consequence of the use of ICI, such as glomerulonephritis and acute thrombotic microangiopathy, among others. In addition, kidney rejection has also been reported in kidney transplant patients treated with ICI. Normally randomized clinical trials with ICI exclude patients with end-stage kidney disease, namely, patients undergoing dialysis and kidney transplant patients. Several important questions need to be addressed in relation to immunotherapy and patients with kidney disease: (a) when to start corticosteroid therapy in a patient with suspected acute kidney injury (AKI) related to ICI, (b) the moment of nephrologist referral and kidney biopsy indication, (c) management of ICI in patients undergoing dialysis, and (d) the effect of ICI in kidney transplantation, immunosuppressive personalized treatment, and risk of allograft rejection in kidney transplant patients. The objective of this review was to summarize the recently published literature on a wide spectrum of kidney disease patients with cancer and ICI. This review will address three main important groups of individuals with kidney disease and cancer immunotherapy, AKI associated with ICI, patients undergoing dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients. We believe that the information provided in this review will enlighten the personalized ICI treatment in individuals with a broader spectrum of kidney diseases.

Interfering with the Expression of Ubiquitin-Like with PHD and Ring Finger Domains 1 Can Inhibit the Invasion of Human Renal Cell Carcinoma

Objective

The ubiquitin-like with PHD and ring finger domains 1 (UHRF1) is a protein coding gene which is associated with colorectal cancer and other diseases. Therefore, the present study was aimed at investigating the effect and mechanism of UHRF1 protein on invasion and metastasis in human renal carcinoma cells.

Methods

After UHRF1 was interfered with or overexpressed in renal carcinoma cell lines A498 and 769-P, the relative mRNA and protein level of UHRF1 was detected by RT-qPCR and immunofluorescence. The colony formation assay and MTT were performed to observe the proliferation and cell viability in each group. In addition, the invasion and metastasis of the cells in each group were detected by Transwell and wound healing assay. Finally, Western blot was utilized to measure protein expression of MMP-2 and MMP-9 and the level of protein in the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway.

Results

The cell ability, proliferation, invasion, and metastasis in A498 and 769-P cells were inhibited after interfering with UHRF1. In addition, the expression of MMP-2, MMP-9, c-myc, and β-catenin was significantly decreased, while the expression of GSK-3β was significantly increased. However, contrasting results were demonstrated when UHRF1 was overexpressed.

Conclusions

Interference with the expression of UHRF1 was able to inhibit the invasion and metastasis of human renal carcinoma cell lines A498 and 769-P, which may be related to mediating the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway and regulating the expression of MMP-2 and MMP-9.

Chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy: Which drugs can be safely used in the solid organ transplant recipients?

In solid organ transplant recipients, cancer is associated with worse prognosis than in the general population. Among the causes of increased cancer‐associated mortality, are the limitations in selecting the optimal anticancer regimen in solid organ transplant recipients, because of the associated risks of graft toxicity and rejection, drug‐to‐drug interactions, reduced kidney or liver function, and patient frailty and comorbid conditions. The advent of immunotherapy has generated further challenges, mainly because checkpoint inhibitors increase the risk of rejection, which may have life‐threatening consequences in recipients of life‐saving organs. In general, there are no safe or unsafe anticancer drugs. Rather, the optimal choice of the anticancer regimen results from a careful risk/benefit assessment, from the awareness of potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug‐to‐drug interactions, and of the risk of drug overexposure in patients with kidney or liver dysfunction. In this review, we summarize general principles that may help the oncologists and transplant physicians in the multidisciplinary management of recipients of solid organ transplantation with cancer who are candidates for chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor use in patients with end-stage kidney disease: an analysis of reported cases and literature review

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), immunomodulatory antibodies that are used to enhance the immune system, have substantially improved the prognosis of patients with advanced malignancy. As the use of ICI therapy becomes increasingly widespread across different types of cancer, their use in patients receiving dialysis is likely to increase. In this review we summarize the current literature on the use of ICIs in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients and provide aggregate data from reported cases and series. Based on available pharmacological information, ICIs require no dosing adjustment in ESKD patients. Analysis of the reported cases in the literature demonstrates a similar incidence of immune-related adverse events in patients with ESKD receiving dialysis as compared with the general population (49%). Severe reactions graded as 3 and 4 have been seen in 15 patients (16%). As such, it is important that these patients are monitored very closely for immune-related adverse events; however, the risk of these adverse events should not preclude patients on dialysis from receiving these therapies. Cancer remission (complete and partial) was seen in close to 30% of patients, stable disease was seen in 28% and progression of disease in ∼36%. One-third of the patients died. Urothelial and renal cell cancer represented approximately half of all treated cancers and accounted for ∼50% of all deaths reported. Additional data in the dialysis population with the use of ICIs and involvement in prospective studies are needed to better assess outcomes, particularly within specific cancer types.

Renal toxicity of targeted therapies for renal cell carcinoma in patients with normal and impaired kidney function

The introduction of novel targeted therapies during the last 2 decades has led to a significant improvement in patients' clinical outcomes with renal cell carcinoma. However, this improvement came at the price of a whole new spectrum of adverse events, including renal toxicity. Systemic treatment of patients with kidney neoplasms who often present with impairment of kidney function, even prior to treatment, poses an increasing diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for clinicians. Common lifestyle-related comorbidities, i.e., hypertension and diabetes, may contribute to further impairment of kidney function. The lack of official guidelines and the exclusion of patients with reduced kidney function from the clinical trials of recently approved drugs complicate the issue even further. Early detection and correct management of renal toxic effects are crucial to preserve kidney function and ensure the optimal administration of life-prolonging therapies. This review presents detailed information on the renal toxicities of three groups of drugs commonly used in renal cell carcinoma treatment: tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We outline the incidence and underlying mechanisms of renal adverse effects with a focus on patients on renal replacement therapy, as well as present suggestions for their management.

Outcome of advanced renal cell carcinoma arising in end-stage renal disease: comparison with sporadic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The data regarding oncological outcome in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) arising in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are limited.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with advanced RCC on maintenance dialysis therapy (ESRD-RCC) and treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were retrospectively evaluated. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) after initiation of first-line TKI therapy in ESRD-RCC patients were compared to those in RCC arising in the general population (sporadic RCC).

RESULTS

A total of 36 and 240 patients were diagnosed with advanced ESRD-RCC and sporadic RCC, respectively. PFS and OS were significantly shorter in patients with ESRD-RCC than in those with sporadic RCC (p = 0.0004 and p = 0.0045). After adjusting for histopathological type, MSKCC risk and liver metastasis status, ESRD status (ESRD-RCC vs. sporadic RCC) was not an independent risk factor for PFS or OS (both, p > 0.05). The ORR tended to be lower in patients with ESRD-RCC than in those with sporadic RCC (11% vs. 28%, p = 0.0833). In 34 patients with ESRD-RCC treated with sorafenib, longer duration of dialysis was an independent prognostic factor for shorter OS (hazard ratio 3.21, p = 0.0370).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome of advanced ESRD-RCC was poorer than that of sporadic RCC, but this finding was affected by other prognostic factors. Nevertheless, the study suggested that advanced ESRD-RCC was not an indolent disease. Additionally, patients with a longer duration of dialysis therapy might require careful monitoring.

Safe administration of ipilimumab plus nivolumab to a dialysis patient with renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

The combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab has been used as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. While it is well known that hemodialysis patients have a higher rate of renal cell carcinoma compared to the general population, no reports have described the safety of ipilimumab-nivolumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients on hemodialysis.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 73-year-old man with a 21-year history of dialysis was referred to our department in 2019 for bilateral renal tumors and multiple lung nodules. He had already been diagnosed with bilateral renal tumors in 2015, without undergoing surgery due to comorbidities. In May 2019, contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed multiple lung metastases in addition to the existing renal tumors; consequently, he was treated with four doses of nivolumab-ipilimumab with no adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab was safely used in a hemodialysis patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Safety and Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma and End-Stage Renal Disease: Experiences From Real-World Practice

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used widely for treating metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). In practical settings, evidence is lacking on the efficacy of ICIs in some difficult-to-treat patients, such as those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Herein, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICIs for patients with mUC and ESRD.

METHODS

For this retrospective study, patients with mUC who were given ICIs at Kaohsiung Chang Gang Memorial Hospital and Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between April 2016 and November 2019 were consecutively enrolled. All clinicopathologic data, treatment responses, and adverse events were recorded. The immune-related adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between ESRD and non-ESRD groups.

RESULTS

In total, 129 patients with mUC were enrolled, with 11 patients categorized as the ESRD group. Among these patients with ESRD receiving ICIs, 7 of 11 (63.6%) had high-grade (grade ≥3) AEs, chiefly hematologic toxicity. Some rarely encountered AEs were noted, including toxic epidermal necrolysis, tuberculosis reactivation, ascites, and cytokine release syndrome. Patients in the ESRD group had numerically higher ORR (54.5% vs. 28.8%, p = 0.09), PFS (7.1 vs. 3.5 months, p = 0.42), and OS (not reached vs. 15.4 months) than the non-ESRD group. A multivariate Cox regression model demonstrated that leukocytosis (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-5.63; p = 0.01) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (HR 2.91; 95% CI: 1.30-6.53; p = 0.01) were independent prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

Administration of ICIs in patients with mUC and ESRD demonstrated a modest antitumor activity, and should be used with caution for increasing risk of hematologic toxicity.

Management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have radically changed the clinical outcome of several cancers with durable responses. CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4), PD-1 (programmed cell death protein 1) or PDL-1 (programmed cell death ligand protein 1) represent ICIs that can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other agents. The toxicity p\rofiles of ICIs differ from the side effects of cytotoxic agents and come with new toxicities like immune-related adverse events. Typically, these toxicities occur in all organs. However, the main organs affected are the skin, digestive, hepatic, lungs, rheumatologic, and endocrine. Most of the immune toxicity that occurs is low grade but some more severe toxicities can occur that require a rapid diagnosis and appropriate treatment. The recognition of symptoms by physicians and patient is necessary to resolve them rapidly and adapt treatment to allow the toxicity to resolve.

Evaluation of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Patients With End-stage Renal Disease on Hemodialysis: Case Series and Review of the Literature

Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have become standard of care for multiple types of malignancies and while end-stage renal disease is not a contraindication, these patients are frequently excluded from clinical trials. As a result, there is limited data regarding the safety and efficacy of CPI use in this patient population. In this case series, we report outcomes and adverse events in 8 patients on hemodialysis treated with CPIs. Treatment was overall well-tolerated with adverse events in 3 of 8 (37.5%) patients, with 1 (12.5%) having a grade 4 adverse event, which is comparable to the rate reported in literature for the overall population receiving CPI. No treatment related deaths were seen. Because of small sample size, efficacy data is limited. Further studies are needed in this patient population to elucidate the true incidence of adverse events and antitumor activity.

Nivolumab and ipilimumab immunotherapy for hemodialysis patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

Combined immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab is standard therapy for the treatment of patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma who are at intermediate or poor risk. However, data about the safety and efficacy of combined immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients on hemodialysis are limited. Renal function has no known clinically important effects on the pharmacokinetics and clearance of nivolumab and ipilimumab. Further, most immune-related adverse events in patients on hemodialysis are thought to be manageable with the same treatments applied in patients with normal renal function. We present a case of advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in a patient on hemodialysis who received combined immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab and who showed no evident signs of immune-related adverse events. Here, we confirm the safety and efficacy of combined immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab in a patient on hemodialysis.

Targeted and immune therapies among patients with metastatic renal carcinoma undergoing hemodialysis: A systemic review

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe renal impairment or undergoing hemodialysis are usually excluded from clinical trials. Available data regarding safety and activity of systemic therapies (ST) in hemodialyzed patients are scarce.

METHODS

Clinical data were searched through PubMed database until April 2020 according to PRISMA criteria. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment of ST were reported.

RESULTS

Among 270 references, 56 reports were evaluated in full text: 41 were included for efficacy and 42 for safety analysis (sunitinib n = 68, bevacizumab n = 6, everolimus n = 28, temsirolimus n = 17, sorafenib n = 55, axitinib n = 13, pazopanib n = 13, nivolumab n = 18, cabozantinib n = 0, lenvatinib n = 0, and ipilimumab n = 0). Twelve of the reports included PK assessment among dialyzed patients. Hemodialysis did not seem to modify the expected efficacy and safety of each compound among patients undergoing hemodialysis. PK assessments were not modified in comparison with a population not undergoing dialysis.

CONCLUSION

Targeted and Immune therapies seem to be effective and can be used among patients undergoing hemodialysis. Due to frailty and comorbidities associated to chronic hemodialysis enhanced vigilance for these therapies within this specific population is recommended. Dedicated prospective clinical trials would definitely help to obtain data with a higher level of evidence.