SWITCH II: Phase III randomized, sequential, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib-pazopanib versus pazopanib-sorafenib in the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AUO AN 33/11)

Challenges and Opportunities in Interdisciplinary Research and Real-World Data for Treatment Sequences in Health Technology Assessments

With an ever-increasing number of treatment options, the assessment of treatment sequences has become crucial in health technology assessment (HTA). This review systematically explores the multifaceted challenges inherent in evaluating sequences, delving into their interplay and nuances that go beyond economic model structures. We synthesised a 'roadmap' of literature from key methodological studies, highlighting the evolution of recent advances and emerging research themes. These insights were compared against HTA guidelines to identify potential avenues for future research. Our findings reveal a spectrum of challenges in sequence evaluation, encompassing selecting appropriate decision-analytic modelling approaches and comparators, deriving appropriate clinical effectiveness evidence in the face of data scarcity, scrutinising effectiveness assumptions and statistical adjustments, considering treatment displacement, and optimising model computations. Integrating methodologies from diverse disciplines-statistics, epidemiology, causal inference, operational research and computer science-has demonstrated promise in addressing these challenges. An updated review of application studies is warranted to provide detailed insights into the extent and manner in which these methodologies have been implemented. Data scarcity on the effectiveness of treatment sequences emerged as a dominant concern, especially because treatment sequences are rarely compared in clinical trials. Real-world data (RWD) provide an alternative means for capturing evidence on effectiveness and future research should prioritise harnessing causal inference methods, particularly Target Trial Emulation, to evaluate treatment sequence effectiveness using RWD. This approach is also adaptable for analysing trials harbouring sequencing information and adjusting indirect comparisons when collating evidence from heterogeneous sources. Such investigative efforts could lend support to reviews of HTA recommendations and contribute to synthesising external control arms involving treatment sequences.

Nivolumab Switch Maintenance Therapy After Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Induction in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial by the Interdisciplinary Working Group on Renal Tumors of the German Cancer Society (NIVOSWITCH; AIO-NZK-0116ass)

BACKGROUND

The role of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) maintenance therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is undefined.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether switch maintenance therapy with nivolumab improves clinical outcomes in patients with mRCC with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sensitivity.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This open-label phase 2 trial randomized patients with a partial response or stable disease after 10-12-wk TKI induction therapy to either TKI or nivolumab maintenance. Key inclusion criteria were measurable disease, clear cell histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2, and adequate organ function.

INTERVENTION

Intravenous nivolumab 8 × 240 mg every 2 wk, followed by 480 mg every 4 wk or sunitinib 50 mg (4-2 regimen) or pazopanib 800 mg once daily orally.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES

The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were the objective response rate (ORR; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), safety (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03), and patient-reported outcomes (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index). The Kaplan-Meier method, two-sided log-rank tests, and Cox regression models were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Maintenance therapy was nivolumab for 25 patients (51.0%) and TKI for 24 (48.9%). The median age was 65 yr (range 35-79). Nine patients (18.4%) were female, 31 (63.3%) had ECOG PS of 0, and 15 (30.6%) had favorable risk. OS data are immature (17 deaths, 34.7%). The ORR was 20.0% (n = 5) for nivolumab and 52.2% (n = 12) for TKI. PFS was worse with nivolumab (hazard ratio 2.57, 95% confidence interval 1.36-4.89; p = 0.003). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 14 patients (56.0%) with nivolumab and 17 (70.8%) with TKI. A major limitation is early termination of our study.

CONCLUSIONS

TKI treatment achieved superior ORR and PFS in comparison to nivolumab maintenance therapy. Our data do not indicate a role for nivolumab switch maintenance in mRCC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Patients with metastatic kidney cancer who experienced a tumor response or disease stabilization after a short period of targeted treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor did not benefit from a switch to the immunotherapy drug nivolumab. Patients who continued their original treatment achieved better responses and a longer time without disease progression. This trial is registered on EudraCT as 2016-002170-13 and on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02959554.

Comparative safety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective: This study aimed to compare the safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for use as monotherapy or combination therapy for the first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Methods: A systematic review with frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of: cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, tivozanib, cabozantinib + nivolumab, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, axitinib + avelumab, and axitinib + pembrolizumab in previously untreated adult patients with metastatic clear cell RCC. Eligible studies were identified by two reviewers in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias for RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The P score was used to determine the treatment ranking. The mean probability of an event along with the relative measures of the NMA was considered with the treatment rankings. Results: A total of 13 RCTs were included in the systematic review and NMA. Sorafenib and tivozanib used as monotherapy were the best treatment options. Sorafenib achieved the highest P score for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), fatigue, nausea, vomiting of any grade, and hypertension of any grade or grade ≥3. Tivozanib achieved the highest P score for AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, and grade ≥3 diarrhea. Sunitinib was the best treatment option in terms of diarrhea and dysphonia of any grade, while cabozantinib, pazopanib, and axitinib + pembrolizumab-in terms of grade ≥3 fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. TKIs used in combination were shown to have a poorer safety profile than those used as monotherapy. Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab was considered the worst option in terms of any AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, treatment discontinuation due to AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, fatigue of any grade, nausea, vomiting, and grade ≥3 nausea. Axitinib + avelumab was the worst treatment option in terms of dysphonia, grade ≥3 diarrhea, and hypertension, while cabozantinib + nivolumab was the worst option in terms of grade ≥3 vomiting. Interestingly, among the other safety endpoints, cabozantinib monotherapy had the lowest P score for diarrhea and hypertension of any grade. Conclusion: The general safety profile, including common AEs, is better when TKIs are used as monotherapy vs. in combination with immunological agents. To confirm these findings, further research is needed, including large RCTs.

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.

Systemic therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the second-line setting: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the survival benefit and safety profile of current available second-line treatment options of metastatic renal cell carcinomav.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically researched for eligible articles which were published before July 20, 2021. Studies comparing overall/progression free survival (OS/PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and/or adverse events (AEs) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinomav were included.

RESULTS

Nine trials (with 4911 patients) were finally included for final network meta-analysis. Cabozantinib, lenvatinib, and lenvatinib plus everolimus were associated with significantly better PFS, OS, and ORR compared with everolimus, and lenvatinib plus everolimus emerged as the best option. As for grade 3 to 4 AEs, nivolumab showed significantly lower risk of AEs compared with everolimus. Other included treatments were associated with significantly increased risk of AEs. When comprehensively assessed the efficacy and safety of included treatments based on the ranking analysis of PFS, ORR, and grade 3 to 4 AEs, lenvatinib plus everolimus, cabozantinib, and nivolumab showed superior efficacy over other treatments, with relatively lower risk of grade 3 to 4 AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all included therapies, Lenvatinib plus everolimus was identified as the most effective treatment approach, with the best PFS, OS, and ORR. nivolumab was associated with decreased incidence of grade 3 to 4 AEs among included treatment therapies. When comprehensively evaluated the efficacy and safety of included treatment options, lenvatinib plus everolimus, cabozantinb, and nivolumab were associated with better survival benefits and lower risk of AEs. Future studies should focus on the direct comparison of different second-line treatment in real-world populations.

Misleading Reporting (Spin) in Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in Oncology With Statistically Not Significant Results: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Spin, the inaccurate reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with results that are not statistically significant for the primary end point, distorts interpretation of results and leads to misinterpretation. However, the prevalence of spin and related factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To examine misleading reporting, or spin, and the associated factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs through a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of the PubMed database was performed for articles published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy.

STUDY SELECTION

Two investigators independently selected studies using the inclusion criteria of noninferiority parallel-group RCTs aiming to confirm effects to cancer treatments published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Standardized data abstraction was used to extract information concerning the trial characteristics and spin based on a prespecified definition. The main investigator extracted the trial characteristics while both readers independently evaluated the spin. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was spin prevalence in any section of the report. Spin was defined as use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite no statistically significant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from results that are not statistically significant. The associations (prevalence difference and odds ratios [ORs]) between spin and trial characteristics were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The analysis included 52 of 2752 reports identified in the PubMed search. Spin was identified in 39 reports (75.0%; 95% CI, 61.6%-84.9%), including the abstract (34 reports [65.4%; 95% CI, 51.1%-76.9%]) and the main text (38 reports [73.1%; 95% CI, 59.7%-83.3%]). Univariate analysis found that the spin prevalence was higher in reports with data managers (prevalence difference, 27%; 95% CI, 1.1%-50.3%), reports without funding from for-profit sources (prevalence difference, 31.2%; 95% CI, 4.8%-53.8%), and reports of novel experimental treatments (prevalence difference, 37.5%; 95% CI, 5.8%-64.7%). Multivariable analysis found that novel experimental treatment (OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 0.98-22.02) and funding only from nonprofit sources only (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 1.21-22.29) were associated with spin.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review, most noninferiority RCTs reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points showed distorted interpretation and inaccurate reporting. The novelty of an experimental treatment and funding only from nonprofit sources were associated with spin.

Subgroup analysis of the AFTER I-O study: a retrospective study on the efficacy and safety of subsequent molecular targeted therapy after immune-oncology therapy in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background

We performed subgroup analyses of the AFTER I-O study to clarify the association of time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and discontinuation reason of prior immune-oncology (I-O) therapy, and molecular targeted therapy (TT) regimen with the outcomes of TT after I-O.

Methods

The data of Japanese metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with TT after nivolumab (NIVO) (CheckMate 025) or NIVO + ipilimumab (IPI) (CheckMate 214) were retrospectively analyzed. The objective response rates (ORRs), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of TT after I-O were analyzed by subgroups: TTF (<6 or ≥6 months) and discontinuation reason of prior I-O (progression or adverse events), and TT regimen (sunitinib or axitinib). We also analyzed PFS2 of prior I-O and OS from first-line therapy.

Results

The ORR and median PFS of TT after NIVO and NIVO+IPI among the subgroups was 17–36% and 20–44%, and 7.1–11.6 months and 16.3-not reached (NR), respectively. The median OS of TT after NIVO was longer in patients with longer TTF of NIVO and treated with axitinib. Conversely, median OS of TT after NIVO+IPI was similar among subgroups. The median PFS2 of NIVO and NIVO+IPI was 36.7 and 32.0 months, respectively. The median OS from first-line therapy was 70.5 months for patients treated with NIVO and NR with NIVO+IPI. The safety profile of each TT after each I-O was similar to previous reports.

Conclusions

The efficacy of TT after NIVO or NIVO+IPI was favorable regardless of the TTF and discontinuation reason of prior I-O, and TT regimen.

New frontiers against sorafenib resistance in renal cell carcinoma: From molecular mechanisms to predictive biomarkers

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a highly vascularized tumor and prone to distant metastasis. Sorafenib is the first targeted multikinase inhibitor and first-line chemical drug approved for RCC therapy. In fact, only a small number of RCC patients benefit significantly from sorafenib treatment, while the growing prevalence of sorafenib resistance has become a major obstacle for drug therapy effectivity of sorafenib. The molecular mechanisms of sorafenib resistance in RCC are not completely understood by now. Herein, we comprehensively summarize the underlying mechanisms of sorafenib resistance and molecular biomarkers for predicting sorafenib responsiveness. Moreover, we outline strategies suitable for overcoming sorafenib resistance and prospect potential approaches for identifying biomarkers associated with sorafenib resistance in RCC, which contributes to guide individualized and precision drug therapy.

Determinants of resistance to VEGF-TKI and immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) have been the mainstay of treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Despite its early promising results in decreasing or delaying the progression of RCC in patients, VEGF-TKIs have provided modest benefits in terms of disease-free progression, as 70% of the patients who initially respond to the treatment later develop drug resistance, with 30% of the patients innately resistant to VEGF-TKIs. In the past decade, several molecular and genetic mechanisms of VEGF-TKI resistance have been reported. One of the mechanisms of VEGF-TKIs is inhibition of the classical angiogenesis pathway. However, recent studies have shown the restoration of an alternative angiogenesis pathway in modulating resistance. Further, in the last 5 years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized RCC treatment. Although some patients exhibit potent responses, a non-negligible number of patients are innately resistant or develop resistance within a few months to ICI therapy. Hence, an understanding of the mechanisms of VEGF-TKI and ICI resistance will help in formulating useful knowledge about developing effective treatment strategies for patients with advanced RCC. In this article, we review recent findings on the emerging understanding of RCC pathology, VEGF-TKI and ICI resistance mechanisms, and potential avenues to overcome these resistance mechanisms through rationally designed combination therapies.

A Living, Interactive Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of First-line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

CONTEXT

Identifying the most effective first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is challenging as rapidly evolving data quickly outdate the existing body of evidence, and current approaches to presenting the evidence in user-friendly formats are fraught with limitations.

OBJECTIVE

To maintain living evidence for contemporary first-line treatment for previously untreated mRCC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR) and network meta-analysis for first-line treatment of mRCC using data from randomized controlled trials comparing contemporary treatment options with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We applied an advanced programming and artificial intelligence-assisted framework for evidence synthesis to create a living search strategy, facilitate screening and data extraction using a graphical user interface, automate the frequentist network meta-analysis, and display results in an interactive manner.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

As of October 22, 2020, the LISR includes data from 14 clinical trials. Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table. The cabozantinib + nivolumab combination (CaboNivo) is ranked the highest for the overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, whereas ipilimumab + nivolumab (NivoIpi) is ranked the highest for achieving a complete response (CR). NivoIpi, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AteBev) were ranked highest (lowest toxicity) and CaboNivo ranked lowest for treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Network meta-analysis results are summarized as interactive tables and plots, GRADE summary-of-findings tables, and evidence maps.

CONCLUSIONS

This innovative living and interactive review provides the best current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatment options for patients with untreated mRCC. Trial-level comparisons suggest that CaboNivo is likely to cause more AEs but is ranked best for all efficacy outcomes, except NivoIpi offers the best chance of CR. Pembrolizumab + axitinib and NivoIpi are acceptable alternatives, except NivoIpi may not be preferred for patients with favorable risk. Although network meta-analysis provides rankings with statistical adjustments, there are inherent biases in cross-trial comparisons with sparse direct evidence that does not replace randomized comparisons.

PATIENT SUMMARY

It is challenging to decide the best option among the several treatment combinations of immunotherapy and targeted treatments for newly diagnosed metastatic kidney cancer. We have created interactive evidence summaries of multiple treatment options that present the benefits and harms and evidence certainty for patient-important outcomes. This evidence is updated as soon as new studies are published.

Pazopanib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a single-center, real-world, retrospective Chinese study

Background

The efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been demonstrated by a Chinese subgroup analysis of the COMPARZ (Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib in the Treatment of Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma) trial. However, the real-world data are still unknown. This single-center, retrospective study was designed to verify the real-world effects of pazopanib in Chinese patients with mRCC.

Methods

Patients with mRCC and a clinical decision to initiate pazopanib as first-line therapy were eligible. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety being evaluated as secondary endpoints. The effectiveness according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model, number of risk factors in the intermediate risk group, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), and the number and site of organ metastasis were also assessed.

Results

A total of 32 patients were enrolled, including 23 (71.9%) males and 9 (28.1%) females. The median age was 57 years (range 29-75 years). With a median follow-up time of 23.8 months, a median PFS of 18.3 months, and an ORR of 37.5%. Median OS was not reached, and the 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates were 90.6%, 78.1, and 65.6%, respectively. According to IMDC risk model, 37.5% were placed in the favorable risk (FR) subgroup, 56.2% (the majority) were placed in the intermediate risk (IR) subgroup, and 6.3% were placed in the poor risk (PR) subgroup. Compared with the IR and PR groups, the FR group achieved the best ORR (58.3%) and median PFS (22.1 months). Having 1 risk factor, ECOG PS <2, 1 organ metastasis site, and only lung metastasis associated with a higher ORR and better median PFS. The IMDC risk model and number of metastases were associated with PFS. The most common adverse events were change in hair color (69.0%), diarrhea (63%), and hypertension (50%).

Conclusions

Pazopanib showed efficacy and safety in real-world Chinese mRCC patients.

The need for new algorithms of treatment sequencing in clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Introduction: In recent years, the systemic treatment of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) has undergone profound innovations, offering the availability of new drugs, and raising the bar of the survival expectation in this, previously, almost-always, incurable disease. The likeliness of reaching durable response and long-term survival is still closely linked to good clinical management and smart treatment sequencing, rather than to a single systemic treatment choice.Areas covered: We review all systemic therapeutic options currently available, describe the evidence behind the current options available for mRCC patient treatment, and provide our personal cues to support clinical decisions.Expert opinion: The IMDC classification is still the only widely validated tool for the choice of primary therapy. Other elements should then be considered for selecting patients who can still receive TKI monotherapy (good-risk patients) or who deserve an 'all-at-once' approach with TKI plus ICI (poor-risk patients with the high metastatic burden and poor-prognosis organ involvement, likely not able to achieve a second chance), identifying these two 'extreme' situations and setting all the other treatment choices on the basis of several nuances. In the second- and further-line settings, ad-hoc prospective trials are awaited.

Identification of international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium (IMDC) intermediate-risk subgroups in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma

Majority of patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) at first line (1L) treatment are classified in the intermediate-risk (IR) subgroup according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score. As these patients have different prognosis, the aim of this study is to better characterize IR patients in order to better tailor the treatment. Retrospective analysis was performed from IGReCC (Institut Gustave Roussy Renal Cell Carcinoma) database. Overall survival (OS) was defined from start of 1L therapy to death or last follow-up. A multivariable Cox model with backward selection procedure (α = 0.01) and a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis were performed to identify which prognostic factors were associated to OS in IR patients.

From 2005 to 2017, 777 patients with ccRCC were treated with an anti-VEGF 1L therapy. Among 571 evaluable patients for IMDC score, 290 (51%) were classified as IR. With median follow-up 5.8 years (min: 0, max: 12.4) 212 deaths (73%) were observed and median OS was 25 months. Only platelet count was significantly associated to OS (hazard ratio 1.88 [95% CI 1.27–2.88] p = 0.0017). Median OS for patients with PLT > UNL was 18 months [95% CI 12–23] versus 29 months [95% CI 21.4–35.7] for patients with normal PLT count. The selection of PLT count was confirmed on bootstrap samples and was also selected for the first split of the CART-tree analysis.

Patients in the IR group have a heterogeneous prognosis. Elevated PLT count seems identifies a subgroup of patients with poor outcome in the IMDC intermediate-risk population with ccRCC.

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.

Randomised Phase II study comparing alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential administration in first-line metastatic renal carcinoma (SUNRISES study)

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), as alternating blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways could potentially prevent the occurrence of resistance to anti-VEGFR therapy in mRCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

SUNRISES, a randomised open-label Phase II study, investigated the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus upon progression. Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell mRCC were included. Alternating treatment consisted on 12 weeks of sunitinib, followed by 12 weeks of everolimus. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 1 year. The secondary endpoints included the median PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate, and safety.

RESULTS

Accrual was low due to the advent of new-generation therapies, and the study was stopped prematurely. Only 41 patients out of the planned 102 patients were accrued, and randomised in a 2:1 ratio (15 patients to the control arm, 26 to the experimental arm). In all, 60.9% of patients had performance status (PS) 0 and 39% PS 1; 63% had a favourable prognostic risk profile, while 36% were intermediate risk. The primary endpoint was not met. The 1-year PFS rate was 49.7% (experimental arm) vs 84.62% (control arm; P = 0.11). There was a trend towards fewer Grade ≥3 adverse events with the alternating approach (50% vs 73.3%; P = 0.14). The median OS was similar in both treatment arms. The other secondary endpoints favoured the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The study failed to show any benefit of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus in patients with mRCC. The alternating approach using an mTOR inhibitor does not seem to prevent the occurrence of resistance to VEGFR blockade.

Eligibility Criteria and Endpoints in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Trials

OBJECTIVES

Treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are often compared across trials, but trial eligibility criteria and endpoints differ. In an effort to better align trials, the Definition for the Assessment of Time to event Endpoints in CANcer trials (DATECAN) project published recommendations in 2015 to be used in mRCC clinical trial design. We analyzed mRCC trial criteria to determine if DATECAN's recommendations were followed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We compared eligibility criteria across 29 phase 3 mRCC trials conducted between 2003 and 2019. We then evaluated endpoints used in 10 phase 3 trials activated between 2015 and 2019 to determine their compliance with DATECAN's recommendations.

RESULTS

Among the 29 trials, performance status, renal function, and disease characteristics differed in terms of requirements and measures used. In terms of endpoints, the 10 trials did not entirely follow DATECAN's recommendations. In total, 7/10 trials' primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as recommended; 4/9 trials used PFS as an endpoint but did not publish their definition of PFS, and the 5 that did, included "death from any cause" instead of DATECAN's recommendation of "death from kidney cancer."

CONCLUSIONS

Key eligibility criteria were somewhat inconsistent across the phase 3 mRCC trials studied. Endpoints in the newer trials did not align with DATECAN's recommendations. Not only is greater standardization needed to facilitate meta-analyses and cross-trial comparisons, but as evident from lack of adherence to DATECAN's recommendations, greater promotion and adoption of recommendations are needed to better harmonize trial design.

Efficacy and Safety of Approved First-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Treatments in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This network meta-analysis aims to deliver an up-to-date, comprehensive efficacy and toxicity comparison of the approved first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in order to provide support for evidence-based treatment decisions. Previous NMAs of first-line mRCC treatments either predate the approval of all the first-line TKIs currently available or do not include evaluation of safety data for all treatments.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of phase II/III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing approved first-line TKI therapies for mRCC. A random effects model with a frequentist approach was computed for progression-free survival (PFS) data and for the proportion of patients experiencing a maximum of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

The network meta-analysis of PFS demonstrated no significant differences between cabozantinib and either sunitinib (50 mg 4/2), pazopanib or tivozanib. The network meta-analysis indicated that in terms of grade 3 and 4 AEs, tivozanib had the most favourable safety profile and was associated with significantly less risk of toxicity than the other TKIs.

CONCLUSION

These network meta-analysis data demonstrate that cabozantinib, sunitinib, pazopanib and tivozanib do not significantly differ in their efficacy, but tivozanib is associated with a more favourable safety profile in terms of grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Consequently, the relative toxicity of these first-line TKIs may play a more significant role than efficacy comparisons in treatment decisions and in planning future RCTs.

Exploring the Pathological Mechanism of Bladder Cancer Based on Tumor Mutational Burden Analysis

Although immunotherapy has progressed in the treatment of bladder cancer, some patients still have poor prognosis. New therapeutic targets are eager to be discovered to improve the outcomes of bladder cancer. With the development of high-throughput sequencing and tumor profiling, potential tumor biomarkers were identified. Through the interpretation of related data from the Cancer Genome Atlas database (TCGA), some key genes have been discovered to drive the development and prognosis of urinary bladder neoplasm. On account of the success of immunotherapy in many cancer types, we established the relationship between tumor mutation burden and immune microenvironment of bladder cancer and found the changes of several immune cells in this disease. Based on the understanding of the bladder tumor genome and immune environment, this study is supposed to provide new therapies for the treatment of bladder neoplasm.

The Current and Evolving Landscape of First-Line Treatments for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors (VEGFRs), as well as the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and immune checkpoint receptor programmed death 1 (PD-1) signaling pathway have improved clinical outcomes for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) pazopanib and sunitinib are FDA-approved first-line treatment options for advanced RCC; however, other treatment options in this setting are available, including the recently approved combination of nivolumab (anti-PD-1) and ipilimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 [CTLA-4]) for patients with intermediate or poor risk. Unfortunately, treatment guideline recommendations provide little guidance to aid first-line treatment choice. In addition, several ongoing randomized phase III trials of investigational first-line regimens may complicate the RCC treatment paradigm if these agents gain approval. This article reviews clinical trial and real-world evidence for currently approved and investigational first-line treatment regimens for advanced RCC and provides clinical evidence to aid first-line treatment selection. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as first-line treatment options for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, the treatment paradigm is rapidly evolving. The combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was recently approved for intermediate- and poor-risk patients, and other combination strategies and novel first-line agents will likely be introduced soon.