Retrospective Comparison of Triple-sequence Therapies in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Insulin receptor expression to predict resistance to axitinib and elucidation of the underlying molecular mechanism in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to examine the significance of insulin receptor (INSR) expression in predicting resistance to axitinib in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

METHODS

Clinicopathological data were collected from 36 consecutive patients with metastatic RCC who received axitinib. Thirty-three primary tumours were obtained for immunohistochemistry. Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models were created by transplanting primary tumours into immunodeficient mice, establishing axitinib-resistant PDX models. RCC cell lines were co-cultured with human renal glomerular endothelial cells (HGECs) treated with siRNA of INSR (HGEC-siINSR). Gene expression alteration was analysed using microarray.

RESULTS

The patients with low INSR expression who received axitinib had a poorer outcome. Multivariate analysis showed that INSR expression was the independent predictor of progression-free survival. INSR expression decreased in axitinib-resistant PDX tumours. RCC cell lines showed upregulated interferon responses and highly increased interferon-β levels by co-culturing with HGEC-siINSR. HGECs showed decreased INSR and increased interferon-β after axitinib administration. RCC cell lines co-cultured with HGEC-siINSR showed high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, which increased after interferon-β administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Decreased INSR in RCC could be a biomarker to predict axitinib resistance. Regarding the resistant mechanism, vascular endothelial cells with decreased INSR in RCC may secrete interferon-β and induce PD-L1.

Efficacy of Axitinib After Nivolumab Failure in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIM

Whether molecular-targeted therapy, particularly axitinib, is effective after failure of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the therapeutic effect of axitinib as a third-line therapy following second-line nivolumab monotherapy for mRCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from patients treated with axitinib as a third-line therapy after failure of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and second-line nivolumab monotherapy were reviewed. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate during axitinib therapy were retrospectively evaluated. Tumor responses were assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were treated with third-line axitinib after failure of prior TKI and nivolumab. During a median follow-up of 8.15 months, eight (47.1%) and three (17.6%) patients showed disease progression and died, respectively. The median PFS was 12.8 months [95% confidence interval=(CI)4.08-21.7], the 1-year PFS rate was 51.3%, and the 1-year OS rate was 71.6%. The median magnitude of maximum changes of targeted lesions from baseline was -11.9% (95%CI=-36.1-0.44%). The objective response rate and disease control rates were 29.4% (n=5) and 94.1% (n=16), respectively. Univariate analysis for PFS showed a shorter PFS in patients with non-clear cell histopathological types or those with liver metastases (p-Value<0.0001 for both).

CONCLUSION

Axitinib as a third-line therapy showed reasonable therapeutic efficacy after the failure of first-line TKI and second-line nivolumab monotherapy for mRCC. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Clinical and Pathological Characteristics of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Needing a Second-Line Therapy: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

The management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) represents a clinical challenge. Progression or toxicity may occur during first-line treatments and many patients require a second-line option. Given the expanding options for second-line therapies clinicians are faced with the challenge to individualize treatment. We performed a systematic review in order to summarize available evidences about the clinicopathological profile of mRCC patients who receive a second-line therapy. We identified twenty-nine studies enrolling 7650 patients. Discontinuation of first-line therapy was due to progression in the majority of patients with 77.8% patients harboring ≥2 metastatic sites. Most patients had a good performance status, their age ranged from 55 to 70 years and their prognostic profile revealed a good or intermediate disease in most cases. Tailoring of second-line treatment strategies based on these features is strongly advocated.

Abstract

A high percentage of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) require a second-line option. We aimed to summarize available evidences about the clinicopathological profile of mRCC patients who receive a second-line therapy. A systematic review was performed in August 2020. We included papers that met the following criteria: original research; English language; human studies; enrolling mRCC patients entering a second-line therapy. Twenty-nine studies enrolling 7650 patients (73.5% male, mean age: 55 to 70 years) were included. Clear cell histology was reported in 74.4% to 100% of cases. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immunotherapy, bevacizumab, mTOR inhibitors, and chemotherapy were adopted as first line option in 68.5%, 29.2%, 2.9%, 0.6%, and 0.2% of patients, respectively. Discontinuation of first-line therapy was due to progression and toxicity in 18.4% to 100% and in 17% to 48.8% of patients, respectively. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score was 0 or 1 in most cases. Most prevalent prognostic categories according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium and Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Centre score were intermediate and good. About 77.8% of patients harboured ≥2 metastatic sites. In conclusion, patients who enter a second-line therapy are heterogeneous in terms of a clinical-pathological profile. Tailoring of second-line treatment strategies is strongly advocated.

Comparable efficacy and safety between second-line and later-line nivolumab therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of nivolumab as second-line and later-line (third-line or thereafter) therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

Sixty-seven patients who received nivolumab after the failure of at least one molecular-targeted therapy were evaluated. The patients were divided into two groups based on the line of nivolumab: second-line and later-line groups. Efficacy was assessed using progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) after nivolumab initiation, and objective response rate. Safety was assessed using the incidence of immune-related adverse events. These outcomes were compared between the second-line and later-line groups.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients (62.7%) received nivolumab as second-line therapy. There was no significant difference in the progression-free survival (median: 5.06 vs. 6.28 months, p = 0.691) or objective response rate (35.7% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.757) between the second-line and later-line groups. The OS tended to be longer in the second-line group (not reached vs. 26.0 months, p = 0.118), and the rate of patients who received subsequent therapy after nivolumab failure was significantly higher in the second-line group (90.9% vs. 55.0%, p = 0.0025). There was no difference in the incidences of immune-related adverse events between the second-line and later-line groups (any grade: 54.8% vs. 48.0%, p = 0.592; grade ≥ 3: 19.1% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.924).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of nivolumab did not deteriorate and the tolerability was also maintained even in later-line therapy. However, a tendency of longer OS and a higher chance of subsequent therapy after nivolumab failure were observed with nivolumab as second-line therapy.

Efficacy and safety of third-line molecular-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma resistant to first-line vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor and second-line therapy

BACKGROUND

The number of studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of third-line molecular-targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is limited.

METHODS

The data for 48 patients with disease progression after first-line vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and second-line targeted therapy were evaluated. Patients with prior cytokine therapy were excluded. Overall survival (OS) after first- and second-line therapy initiation was compared between patients with and without third-line therapy. In addition, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-two of 48 patients (45.8%) received third-line therapy, and TKI and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were each administered in 11 patients (50%). Patients with third-line therapy had significantly longer median OS after first-line therapy (26.6 vs. 14.6 months, p = 0.0010) and second-line therapy (18.2 vs. 7.4 months, p < 0.0001) compared to those without third-line therapy. Multivariate analysis showed that the use of third-line therapy following second-line therapy was an independent prognosticator for longer OS (hazard ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.58, p = 0.0005). The median progression-free survival and OS after third-line therapy was 2.76 and 8.71 months, respectively. Although a high frequency of DLTs was observed (n = 10, 45.5%), the frequencies were similar among the sequential therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Third-line therapy has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients with mRCC that is resistant to previous therapies. However, there is a need to evaluate in detail the high frequency of adverse events, including DLTs.

Genitourinary tumours in the targeted therapies era: new advances in clinical practice and future perspectives

Genitourinary cancers represent a heterogeneous group of malignancies arising from genitourinary tract, and are responsible for almost 359 000 newly diagnosed cases and 58 420 related deaths in USA. Continuous advances in cancer genetics and genomics have contributed towards changing the management paradigms of these neoplasms. Neoangiogenesis, through the activation of the tyrosine-kinase receptors signalling pathways, represents the key mediator event in promoting tumour proliferation, differentiation, invasiveness and motility. In the last decade, several treatments have been developed with the specific aim of targeting different cell pathways that have been recognized to drive tumour progression. The following review attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature, focusing on new advances in targeted therapies for genitourinary tumours. Furthermore, the promising results of the latest clinical trials and future perspectives will be discussed.

Time to progression after first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor predicts survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving second-line molecular-targeted therapy

OBJECTIVES

The effect of response to first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy on second-line survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who receive second-line molecular-targeted therapy (mTT) after first-line failure remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients who developed disease progression after first-line TKI, without prior cytokine therapy, were enrolled. According to the median first-line time to progression (1L-TTP), patients were divided into 2 groups (i.e., short vs. long). Second-line progression-free survival (2L-PFS) and second-line overall survival (2L-OS) were defined as the time from second-line mTT initiation. Survival was calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test between patients with short and long 1L-PFS. Predictors for survivals were identified using Cox proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

The median 1L-TTP was 8.84 months. Thirty patients (50.0%) with short 1L-TTP (<8.84mo) had significantly shorter 2L-PFS and 2L-OS compared to patients with long 1L-TTP (2L-PFS: 4.96 vs. 10.2mo, P = 0.0002; 2L-OS: 9.6 vs. 28.0mo, P = 0.0036). Multivariable analyses for 2L-PFS and 2L-OS showed that 1L-TTP was an independent predictor both as a categorical classification (cutoff: 8.84mo) and as a continuous variable (both P<0.05). The median follow-up duration was 13.1 months (interquartile range: 6.56-24.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who achieve a long-term response after first-line TKI therapy could have a favorable prognosis with second-line mTT.

Targeted therapy for renal cell carcinoma: focus on 2nd and 3rd line

INTRODUCTION

Second- and third-line treatments are more and more frequently administered to metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients.

AREAS COVERED

Here we discuss the various levels of evidence supporting presently available recommendations, trying to address a number of as yet unanswered issues, and also to take a glowing glance at the future. To do this, we interrogated the Medline database, as well as the proceedings of the main Oncological and Urological conferences for relevant studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Until recently, with regard to choosing the second line treatment after the failure of therapy with vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs), the continued inhibition of the VEGF/VEGR pathway, or else the switch to an mTOR inhibitor, is recommended. These two options are characterized by partly different targets, completely different toxicity profiles, but a comparable efficacy. This scenario will change soon, after the publication of two randomized, controlled, phase III trials in which cabozantinib and nivolumab proved to be superior as compared to everolimus. As regards third line treatment, where a sequence of two VEGFR-TKIs has been used beforehand, the choice is represented by the mTOR inhibitor everolimus, whilst if a VEGFR-TKI followed by everolimus has been chosen, a return to VEGF pathway inhibition is suggested.

Clinical Outcome of Third-Line Pazopanib in a Patient with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background. Renal cell carcinoma accounts for about 2-3% of all malignant tumors. The prevalence of brain metastases from RCC is less than 20% of cases. Traditionally, whole brain radiotherapy as well as the latest stereotactic radiosurgery improves both survival and local tumor control. These treatments also allow stabilization of clinical symptomatology. However, validated treatment guidelines for RCC patients with brain metastases are not yet available on account of the frequent exclusion of such patients from clinical trials. Moreover, limited data about the sequential use of three therapies, changing the class of agent, have been published up to now. Case Report. We report the case of a patient with metastatic RCC who developed disease progression after sunitinib and everolimus as first-line and second-line therapy, respectively. Thus, he underwent a multimodality treatment with pazopanib, as third-line therapy, to control systemic disease and radiosurgery directed on the new brain metastasis. To date, the patient is still receiving pazopanib, with progression-free survival and overall survival of 43 and 103 months, respectively. Conclusion. In a context characterized by different emerging options, with no general consensus on the optimal treatment strategy, the use of pazopanib in pretreated patients could be a suitable choice.

Efficacy of fourth-line targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective analysis

INTRODUCTION

Evidence for sequencing targeted therapy (TT) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) beyond third line is limited. Treatment decisions for these sequence options are largely based on individual preferences and experience. The aim of this study was to describe the efficacy and toxicity of fourth-line TT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients treated with fourth-line TT for mRCC after failure of previous treatment lines at a German academic high-volume center. Out of 406 patients treated in first line, 56 patients (14.8 %) were identified with more than three lines of TT. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to explore predictors of PFS and OS in uni- and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

For the fourth-line treatment, disease control rate was 35.7 %. Median OS from beginning of first-line therapy was 47.4 months (IQR 31.0-76.5). Primary resistance at first-line TT, metastatic disease at initial diagnosis and an intermediate MSKCC score were independent predictors of shorter OS from start of first-line TT. Median OS from the time of initiation of fourth-line therapy was 10.5 months (IQR 5.6-22.6). The corresponding median PFS for fourth-line TT was 3.2 months (IQR 1.6-8.0) and was not correlated with treatment response in first-line TT. The rate of toxicity-induced treatment termination was 16.1 %. Limitations are the retrospective and unicentric design with a limited number of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients might benefit from subsequent treatment lines independently from treatment response in first line.

Efficacy of targeted treatment beyond third-line therapy in metastatic kidney cancer: retrospective analysis from a large-volume cancer center

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Currently, 7 agents are approved for the first- and second-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In contrast, data supporting their use beyond second line are limited. Here we summarize our experience in patients treated with more than 4 lines of therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the outcome of 24 patients treated at our institution with at least 4 lines of therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Median OS from the initiation of first-line therapy for the whole cohort is 64.7 months. Up to 96% of the patients received a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor (mTOR-I) within the first 3 lines of treatment. In the fourth or following lines, patients were treated with TKI, mTOR-I, bevacizumab/interferon, or experimental drugs. Seven patients continued treatment with a sixth-line agent; one has been treated up to the ninth line. Sixteen percent of the patients receiving fourth-line therapy and 13% receiving fifth-line therapy experienced a partial remission, which was independent from response to previous therapies. Median OS from fourth and fifth line was 30.8 and 26.2 months, respectively. Median PFS for fourth-line therapy was 5.8 months. No significant difference in PFS was observed for patients with disease that responded or did not respond to first-line therapy.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of a retrospective analysis, our study suggests that selected patients benefit from multiple lines of treatment, independent of response to first-line therapy. However, the optimal sequence of treatment with regard to later lines remains to be determined.

Comparative Effectiveness of Second-Line Targeted Therapies for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World Observational Studies

OBJECTIVE

The optimal sequencing of targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is unknown. Observational studies with a variety of designs have reported differing results. The objective of this study is to systematically summarize and interpret the published real-world evidence comparing sequential treatment for mRCC.

METHODS

A search was conducted in Medline and Embase (2009-2013), and conference proceedings from American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (ASCO-GU), and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) (2011-2013). We systematically reviewed observational studies comparing second-line mRCC treatment with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) versus vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Studies were evaluated for 1) use of a retrospective cohort design after initiation of second-line therapy, 2) adjustment for patient characteristics, and 3) use of data from multiple centers. Meta-analyses were conducted for comparisons of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Ten studies reported OS and exhibited significant heterogeneity in estimated second-line treatment effects (I2 = 68%; P = 0.001). Four of these were adjusted, multicenter, retrospective cohort studies, and these showed no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; P = 0.61) and a significant association between second-line mTORi (>75% everolimus) and longer OS compared to VEGF TKI (>60% sorafenib) (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.98) in a meta-analysis. Seven studies comparing PFS showed significant heterogeneity overall and among the adjusted, multicenter, retrospective cohort studies. Real-world observational data for axitinib outcomes was limited at the time of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world studies employed different designs and reported heterogeneous results comparing the effectiveness of second-line mTORi and VEGF TKI in the treatment of mRCC. Within the subset of adjusted, multicenter observational studies, second-line use of mTORi was associated with significantly prolonged survival compared with second-line use of VEGF TKI.

Comparative effectiveness of second-line targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: synthesis of findings from two multi-practice chart reviews in the United States

BACKGROUND

Second-line targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This study compares the effectiveness of these therapies in a multi-practice chart review and synthesizes the findings with those of a similarly designed study.

METHODS

Medical oncologists/hematologists (N = 36) were recruited to review charts for patients aged ≥18 years, received a first-line TKI and initiated second-line targeted therapy in 2010 or later. The primary outcome was time from second-line initiation to treatment failure (TTF; discontinuation, physician-assessed progression, or death, whichever occurred first). TTF was compared among patients receiving second-line everolimus (EVE), temsirolimus (TEM), or TKI as a class, using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for type of initial TKI and response, histological subtype, performance status, and sites of metastasis. Hazard ratios (HRs) for TTF were pooled, in a meta-analysis, with previously reported HRs for progression-free survival from a chart review with a similar design.

RESULTS

A total of 138, 64 and 79 patients received second-line therapy with EVE, TEM or a TKI, respectively. Adjusting for baseline characteristics, EVE was associated with numerical, but not statistically significant, reductions of 28% (HR = 0.72; 95% CI [0.45-1.16]) and 26% (HR = 0.74; 95% CI [0.48-1.15]) in the hazard of TTF compared to TEM and TKI, respectively. After pooling the HRs from both studies, EVE was associated with significantly reduced hazards of TTF compared to TEM and TKI (HR = 0.73; 95% CI [0.57-0.93]; and HR = 0.75; 95% CI [0.57-0.98], respectively).

LIMITATIONS

LIMITATIONS include retrospective analyses with possible missing or erroneous chart data, confounding of unobserved factors due to non-randomization, and limited data for axitinib during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

In pooled results from two independent multi-practice chart reviews of second-line mRCC treatment, EVE was associated with significantly reduced hazards of treatment failure compared to TEM and to TKIs as a class.

Categories of response to first line vascular endothelial growth factor receptor targeted therapy and overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Sequential use of targeted therapy (TT) has improved overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The value of objective response (OR) as compared to stable disease (SD) is unclear. We aimed to investigate OR of first-line TT and its impact on OS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of OS among 331 mRCC patients with a first-line assessment according to RECIST 1.0. Characteristics between objective responders (complete response [CR] or partial remission [PR]), patients with SD and non-responders (progressive disease [PD] and toxicity [Tox]) were compared with the Chi-square test and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Cox model analysis of Predictors of OS .

RESULTS

Best response was CR, PR, SD, PD and Tox in 9 (2.7%), 61 (18.4%), 167 (50.5%), 80 (24.2%) and 14 (4.2%) patients respectively resulting in an OR rate of 21%. Median OS in months: CR 63.2; PR 37.6; SD 35.9; PD 14.6; TOX 22.5 (p<0.0001). Median PFS for responders was 14.8, 11.5 for patients with SD and 2.5 for non-responders (p<0.0001). Similarly median OS was 38.7, 35.9 and 15.5 (p<0.00001). Primary resistance and a first-line PFS <6months were the strongest independent predictors of OS. The achievement of OR as compared to SD did not impact OS.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort of unselected patients OR was not associated with superior OS as compared to SD.

Prolonged exposure to tyrosine kinase inhibitors or early use of everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: are the two options alike?

We retrospectively analyzed metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients treated with 3 targeted agents. Patients started the sequence with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), sunitinib or sorafenib, and were divided into 2 groups based on the order in which they received the other reciprocal TKI and everolimus (EVE): TKI-TKI-EVE group (n = 19) and TKI-EVE-TKI group (n = 14). Median progression-free survival (PFS) with first TKI was 13 months in the TKI-TKI-EVE group and 10 months in the TKI-EVE-TKI group. PFS with the second agent showed a trend in favor of the TKI-TKI-EVE sequence, with a median of 11 versus 6.5 months, whereas median PFS with the third agent was 6 months in both groups. Total PFS also showed a trend in favor of the TKI-TKI-EVE sequence with a median of 31 versus 23 months. Median overall survival (OS) was 38 months in both groups, with more patients receiving subsequent treatment in the TKI-EVE-TKI group. The subgroup of patients no long-term responders (≤9 months) to first TKI showed similar outcomes irrespective of the sequence. The subgroup of long-term responders to first TKI (>9 months) who received the other TKI instead of EVE had better outcomes in terms of median PFS with the second agent (13 vs. 5.5 months; p = 0.0271), median total PFS (39.5 vs. 23.5 months; p = 0.0415), and median OS (46 vs. 38 months). In conclusion, no apparent advantage was observed with early use of EVE in advanced RCC, even in those patients who did not benefit long from first-line TKI, whereas long-term duration of first-line TKI seems to be predictor of second-line TKI efficacy.