Depth of remission is a prognostic factor for survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Effect of Treatment of Residual Disease After Immunotherapy-Based Combinations on Complete Response Rate of Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinomas

INTRODUCTION

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations have revolutionized the management of first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) by improving patient survival. Large phase 3 randomized trials assessing ICI-based combinations have reported complete response (CR) rates of 10% to 18% in the first-line setting. However, there is a scarcity of data about the effect of treatment of residual disease regarding CR rates improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included retrospectively all consecutive mRCC patients treated in first-line setting at the Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe with an ICI-based combination involving ICI or TKI, either alone or with added local treatment of residual disease. Patients were characterized according to IMDC risk. Radiologic response was defined according to RECIST v1.1.

RESULTS

We enrolled 80 mRCC patients treated with ICI-based combinations between May 2015 and May 2022. The median age was 63 years. Regarding IMDC risk, there were 12 favourable (15%), 50 intermediate (63%), and 18 poor-risk (22%) patients. Forty-seven patients (59%) received ICI + ICI, 24 (30%) received ICI + TKI, and 9 (11%) received another ICI-based therapy. In total, 8 achieved CR (10%), 36 patients (45%) achieved partial response, 23 (29%) achieved stable disease and 12 achieved progressive disease (15%) as the best response with systemic therapy alone. By adding local treatment of residual disease, 11 additional patients (14%) achieved radiological NED. Residual disease resected sites included kidney (n = 6), lymph nodes (n = 5), lung metastases (n = 2) and liver metastases (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

The resection of residual disease after first-line ICI-based therapy is associated with improved CR rate (CR + NED) in patients with mRCC. These results need to be validated in prospective trial.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In recent years, the advent of immunotherapy has radically changed the management of patients with metastatic kidney cancer. Approximately 10% to 18% of these patients using immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations no longer have detectable disease on CT scans (complete response). There are currently few data on the use of treatment of residual disease to increase the number of patients in complete response. In this retrospective study, the complete response rate with ICI-based treatment was 10%. When local treatment was added, the number of patients with a complete response increased to 24%. This strategy could increase the number of patients with a prolonged complete response in the future.

Antiangiogenic-immune-checkpoint inhibitor combinations: lessons from phase III clinical trials

Antiangiogenic agents, generally antibodies or tyrosine-kinase inhibitors that target the VEGF-VEGFR pathway, are currently among the few combination partners clinically proven to improve the efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This benefit has been demonstrated in pivotal phase III trials across different cancer types, some with practice-changing results; however, numerous phase III trials have also had negative results. The rationale for using antiangiogenic drugs as partners for ICIs relies primarily on blocking the multiple immunosuppressive effects of VEGF and inducing several different vascular-modulating effects that can stimulate immunity, such as vascular normalization leading to increased intratumoural blood perfusion and flow, and inhibition of pro-apoptotic effects of endothelial cells on T cells, among others. Conversely, VEGF blockade can also cause changes that suppress antitumour immunity, such as increased tumour hypoxia, and reduced intratumoural ingress of co-administered ICIs. As a result, the net clinical benefits from antiangiogenic-ICI combinations will be determined by the balance between the opposing effects of VEGF signalling and its inhibition on the antitumour immune response. In this Perspective, we summarize the results from the currently completed phase III trials evaluating antiangiogenic agent-ICI combinations. We also discuss strategies to improve the efficacy of these combinations, focusing on aspects that include the deleterious functions of VEGF-VEGFR inhibition on antitumour immunity, vessel co-option as a driver of non-angiogenic tumour growth, clinical trial design, or the rationale for drug selection, dosing and scheduling.

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.

Managing First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Favorable-Risk Disease

Defining metastatic renal-cell carcinoma as a favorable risk depends on clinical risk-stratification tools such as the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium or the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center scores. The favorable-risk disease tends to have better prognosis and survival compared with disease stratified as either intermediate or poor risk and can be attributed in part to an indolent tumor biology. Several phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival and objective response rate, but not overall survival benefit with combinations of immunotherapy and vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors compared with sunitinib in favorable-risk disease.

Survival by Depth of Response and Efficacy by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Subgroup with Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of the Phase 3 Randomized CLEAR Study

BACKGROUND

The extent of tumor shrinkage has been deemed a predictor of survival for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a disease with historically poor survival.

OBJECTIVE

To perform an exploratory analysis of overall survival (OS) by tumor response by 6 mo, and to assess the efficacy and survival outcomes in specific subgroups.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

CLEAR was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial of first-line treatment of advanced clear cell RCC.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally daily with pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 wk, lenvatinib plus everolimus (not included in this analysis), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily for 4 wk on treatment/2 wk of no treatment.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Landmark analyses were conducted to assess the association of OS with tumor shrinkage and progressive disease status by 6 mo. Progression-free survival, duration of response, and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk subgroup and by the presence of target kidney lesions. Efficacy was assessed by an independent review committee as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Landmark analyses by tumor shrinkage showed that patients enrolled to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm with a confirmed complete response or >75% target-lesion reduction by 6 mo had a 24-mo OS probability of ≥91.7%. A landmark analysis by disease progression showed that patients with no progression by 6 mo had lower probabilities of death in both arms. Patients with an IMDC risk classification of intermediate/poor had longer median progression-free survival (22.1 vs 5.9 mo) and a higher ORR (72.4% vs 28.8%) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib. Similarly, results favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in IMDC-favorable patients and those with/without target kidney lesions. Limitations of the study are that results were exploratory and not powered/stratified.

CONCLUSIONS

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed improved efficacy versus sunitinib for patients with advanced RCC; landmark analyses showed that tumor response by 6 mo correlated with longer OS.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report of the CLEAR trial, we explored the survival of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma by assessing how well they initially responded to treatment. We also explored how certain groups of patients responded to treatment overall. Patients were assigned to cycles of either lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 wk or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 wk (followed by a 2-wk break). Patients who either had a "complete response" or had their tumors shrunk by >75% within 6 mo after starting treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab had better survival than those with less tumor reduction by 6 mo. Additionally, patients who had more severe disease (as per the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) at the start of study treatment survived for longer without disease progression with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib.

Complete Response in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors: Remission or Healing? How to Improve Patients' Outcomes?

Renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2% of cancer diagnoses and deaths worldwide. Clear-cell RCCs represent the vast majority (85%) of kidney cancers and are considered morphologically and genetically as immunogenic tumors. Indeed, the RCC tumoral microenvironment comprises T cells and myeloid cells in an immunosuppressive state, providing an opportunity to restore their activity through immunotherapy. Standard first-line systemic treatment for metastatic patients includes immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting PD1, in combination with either another ICI or with antiangiogenic targeted therapy. During the past few years, several combinations have been approved with an overall survival benefit and overall response rate that depend on the combination. Interestingly, some patients achieve prolonged complete responses, raising the question of whether these metastatic RCC patients can be cured. This review will focus on recent therapeutic advances in RCC and the clinical and biological aspects underpinning the potential for healing.

Dose Individualization of Oral Multi-Kinase Inhibitors for the Implementation of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Oral multi-kinase inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape for various cancer types and provided significant improvements in clinical outcomes. These agents are mainly approved at fixed doses, but the large inter-individual variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (efficacy and safety) has been an unsolved clinical issue. For example, certain patients treated with oral multi-kinase inhibitors at standard doses have severe adverse effects and require dose reduction and discontinuation, yet other patients have a suboptimal response to these drugs. Consequently, optimizing the dosing of oral multi-kinase inhibitors is important to prevent over-dosing or under-dosing. To date, multiple studies on the exposure-efficacy/toxicity relationship of molecular targeted therapy have been attempted for the implementation of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) strategies. In this milieu, we recently conducted research on several multi-kinase inhibitors, such as sunitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, and lenvatinib, with the aim to optimize their treatment efficacy using a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic approach. Among them, sunitinib use is an example of successful TDM implementation. Sunitinib demonstrated a significant correlation between drug exposure and treatment efficacy or toxicities. As a result, TDM services for sunitinib has been covered by the National Health Insurance program in Japan since April 2018. Additionally, other multi-kinase targeted anticancer drugs have promising data regarding the exposure-efficacy/toxicity relationship, suggesting the possibility of personalization of drug dosage. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of the clinical evidence for dose individualization of multi-kinase inhibitors and discuss the utility of TDM of multi-kinase inhibitors, especially sunitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, and lenvatinib.

Prediction of early progression of metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Background:

There are various alternative first-line therapeutic options besides tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). To inform therapeutic decision-making for such patients, this study aimed to identify predictive factors for resistance to TKI.

Materials and methods:

A total of 239 cases of mRCC patients who received first-line TKI therapy were retrospectively studied. Patients with a radiologic diagnosis of progressive disease within 3 months after initiating therapy were classified as primary refractory cases; the others were classified as non-primary refractory cases. The association between primary refractory cases and age, gender, pathology findings, serum c-reactive protein (CRP) level, metastatic organ status, and 6 parameters defined by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium were analyzed.

Results:

Of 239 cases, 32 (13.3%) received a radiologic diagnosis of progressive disease within 3 months after initiating therapy. The rates of sarcomatoid differentiation, hypercalcemia, a serum CRP level of 0.3 mg/dL or higher, presence of liver metastasis, anemia, and time from diagnosis to treatment interval of less than a year were significantly higher in the primary refractory group. Multivariate analysis showed that sarcomatoid differentiation, hypercalcemia, a serum CRP level of 0.3 mg/dL or higher, and liver metastasis were independently associated with primary refractory disease. A risk-stratified model based upon the number of patients with these factors indicated rates of primary refractory disease of 4.0%, 10.1%, and 45.0% for patients with 0, 1, and 2 or more factors, respectively.

Conclusions:

Sarcomatoid differentiation, hypercalcemia, an elevated serum CRP level, and presence of liver metastasis were associated with primary refractory disease in mRCC patients receiving first-line TKI therapy. These results provide clinicians with useful information when selecting a first-line therapeutic option for mRCC patients.

Twenty Years On: RECIST as a Biomarker of Response in Solid Tumours an EORTC Imaging Group - ESOI Joint Paper

Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 are currently the reference standard for evaluating efficacy of therapies in patients with solid tumours who are included in clinical trials, and they are widely used and accepted by regulatory agencies. This expert statement discusses the principles underlying RECIST, as well as their reproducibility and limitations. While the RECIST framework may not be perfect, the scientific bases for the anticancer drugs that have been approved using a RECIST-based surrogate endpoint remain valid. Importantly, changes in measurement have to meet thresholds defined by RECIST for response classification within thus partly circumventing the problems of measurement variability. The RECIST framework also applies to clinical patients in individual settings even though the relationship between tumour size changes and outcome from cohort studies is not necessarily translatable to individual cases. As reproducibility of RECIST measurements is impacted by reader experience, choice of target lesions and detection/interpretation of new lesions, it can result in patients changing response categories when measurements are near threshold values or if new lesions are missed or incorrectly interpreted. There are several situations where RECIST will fail to evaluate treatment-induced changes correctly; knowledge and understanding of these is crucial for correct interpretation. Also, some patterns of response/progression cannot be correctly documented by RECIST, particularly in relation to organ-site (e.g. bone without associated soft-tissue lesion) and treatment type (e.g. focal therapies). These require specialist reader experience and communication with oncologists to determine the actual impact of the therapy and best evaluation strategy. In such situations, alternative imaging markers for tumour response may be used but the sources of variability of individual imaging techniques need to be known and accounted for. Communication between imaging experts and oncologists regarding the level of confidence in a biomarker is essential for the correct interpretation of a biomarker and its application to clinical decision-making. Though measurement automation is desirable and potentially reduces the variability of results, associated technical difficulties must be overcome, and human adjudications may be required.

Multiparametric MRI for assessment of early response to neoadjuvant sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

To detect early response to sunitinib treatment in metastatic clear cell renal cancer (mRCC) using multiparametric MRI.

METHOD

Participants with mRCC undergoing pre-surgical sunitinib therapy in the prospective NeoSun clinical trial (EudraCtNo: 2005-004502-82) were imaged before starting treatment, and after 12 days of sunitinib therapy using morphological MRI sequences, advanced diffusion-weighted imaging, measurements of R2* (related to hypoxia) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Following nephrectomy, participants continued treatment and were followed-up with contrast-enhanced CT. Changes in imaging parameters before and after sunitinib were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the log-rank test was used to assess effects on survival.

RESULTS

12 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. After 12 days, the solid and necrotic tumor volumes decreased by 28% and 17%, respectively (p = 0.04). However, tumor-volume reduction did not correlate with progression-free or overall survival (PFS/OS). Sunitinib therapy resulted in a reduction in median solid tumor diffusivity D from 1298x10-6 to 1200x10-6mm2/s (p = 0.03); a larger decrease was associated with a better RECIST response (p = 0.02) and longer PFS (p = 0.03) on the log-rank test. An increase in R2* from 19 to 28s-1 (p = 0.001) was observed, paralleled by a decrease in Ktrans from 0.415 to 0.305min-1 (p = 0.01) and a decrease in perfusion fraction from 0.34 to 0.19 (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Physiological imaging confirmed efficacy of the anti-angiogenic agent 12 days after initiating therapy and demonstrated response to treatment. The change in diffusivity shortly after starting pre-surgical sunitinib correlated to PFS in mRCC undergoing nephrectomy, however, no parameter predicted OS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCtNo: 2005-004502-82.

Complete response and renal cell carcinoma in the immunotherapy era: The paradox of good news

Immune-checkpoint inhibitor-based therapy has revolutionized the natural history of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) providing better survival outcomes, higher rates of complete responses (CR) and durable remissions. Along with these advances, new challenges have emerged. RECIST and new immune-response criteria may be equivocal identifying complete responses. How to define a durable response and what is the optimal treatment duration remains unclear. Furthermore, the real value of a complete and deep response, whether or not it can be considered curation and whether or not immunotherapy discontinuation should be considered after complete response, are questions that remain open. The present article reviews the current evidence regarding the impact and challenges of managing complete and durable responses in mRCC treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors.

Independent action models and prediction of combination treatment effects for response rate, duration of response and tumor size change in oncology drug development

An unprecedented number of new cancer targets are in development, and most are being developed in combination therapies. Early oncology development is strategically challenged in choosing the best combinations to move forward to late stage development. The most common early endpoints to be assessed in such decision-making include objective response rate, duration of response and tumor size change. In this paper, using independent-drug-action and Bliss-drug-independence concepts as a foundation, we introduce simple models to predict combination therapy efficacy for duration of response and tumor size change. These models complement previous publications using the independent action models (Palmer 2017, Schmidt 2020) to predict progression-free survival and objective response rate and serve as new predictive models to understand drug combinations for early endpoints. The models can be applied to predict the combination treatment effect for early endpoints given monotherapy data, or to estimate the possible effect of one monotherapy in the combination if data are available from the combination therapy and the other monotherapy. Such quantitative work facilitates strategic planning and decision making in early stage oncology drug development.

Beyond conventional immune-checkpoint inhibition - novel immunotherapies for renal cell carcinoma

The management of advanced-stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been transformed by the development of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Nonetheless, most patients do not derive durable clinical benefit from these agents. Importantly, unlike other immunotherapy-responsive solid tumours, most RCCs have only a moderate mutational burden, and paradoxically, high levels of tumour CD8+ T cell infiltration are associated with a worse prognosis in patients with this disease. Building on the successes of antibodies targeting the PD-1 and CTLA4 immune checkpoints, multiple innovative immunotherapies are now in clinical development for the treatment of patients with RCC, including ICIs with novel targets, co-stimulatory pathway agonists, modified cytokines, metabolic pathway modulators, cell therapies and therapeutic vaccines. However, the successful development of such novel immune-based treatments and of immunotherapy-based combinations will require a disease-specific framework that incorporates a deep understanding of RCC immunobiology. In this Review, using the structure provided by the well-described cancer-immunity cycle, we outline the key steps required for a successful antitumour immune response in the context of RCC, and describe the development of promising new immunotherapies within the context of this framework. With this approach, we summarize and analyse the most encouraging targets of novel immune-based therapies within the RCC microenvironment, and review the landscape of emerging antigen-directed therapies for this disease.

Extrapolation of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of sunitinib in children with gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Purpose

The starting dose of sunitinib in children with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) was extrapolated based on data in adults with GIST or solid tumors and children with solid tumors.

Methods

Integrated population pharmacokinetics (PK), PK/pharmacodynamics (PD), and exposure–response analyses using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling approaches were performed to extrapolate PK and PD of sunitinib in children with GIST at projected dose(s) with plasma drug exposures comparable to 50-mg/day in adults with GIST. The analysis datasets included PK/PD data in adults with GIST and adults and children with solid tumors. The effect of covariates on PK and safety/efficacy endpoints were explored.

Results

Two-compartment models with lag time were successfully used to describe the PK of sunitinib and its active metabolite SU012662. PK/PD models were successfully built to describe key continuous safety and efficacy endpoints. The effect of age on sunitinib apparent clearance (CL/F) and body surface area on SU012662 CL/F was statistically significant (P ≤ 0.001): children who were younger or of smaller body size had lower CL/F; however, age and body size did not appear to negatively affect safety or efficacy response to plasma drug exposure.

Conclusion

Based on PK, safety, and efficacy trial simulations, a sunitinib starting dose of ~ 25 mg/m²/day was predicted to provide comparable plasma drug exposures in children with GIST as in adults with GIST treated with 50 mg/day. However, in the absence of a tumor type effect of sunitinib on CL/F in children, the projected equivalent dose for this population would be ~ 20 mg/m²/day.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00280-020-04221-x.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis.

INTERPRETATION

With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Complete response to immune checkpoint inhibitors-based therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

A major breakthrough with immunotherapy is its potential to achieve complete responses (CR) in a subset of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients. We aim at evaluating the incidence and relative risk (RR) of CR in RCC patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Searching the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library and ASCO Meeting abstracts prospective studies were identified. The proportion of patients with CR events and the derived 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each study. Combined relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were calculated using fixed- or random-effects methods. The analysis was performed in the intention to treat population, in the PD-L1 expressing (≥1%) RCC tumors and in patients treated with the combination of ICIs and anti-VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

RESULTS

Six articles were considered for final analysis (total of 4.531 patients). The incidence of CR was 6.2% with ICIs and 2.6% with SOC. Treatment with ICIs significantly increased the risk of achieving CR compared to SOC (RR = 2.40; P = 0.001). This data was confirmed for patients treated with the combination of ICIs plus anti-VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (RR = 2.50; P = 0.002). In PD-L1 positive tumors, the incidence of CR was 10.0% with ICIs and 4.0% in the SOC arm (RR = 2.49; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

ICIs provide higher rates of CR compared to SOC, even higher in patients with PD-L1 positive tumors.

Prognostic Impact of the Components of Progressive Disease on Survival After First-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

According to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) classification, progressive disease (PD) is defined as target lesion growth (TLG), unequivocal non-target lesion growth (NTLG), or new lesion appearance (NLA). The prognostic impact of the components of PD in tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We retrospectively evaluated the prognostic impact of these PD components on survival in patients with mRCC after first-line TKI therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were divided into three groups (TLG, NTLG, and NLA) based on the components of PD. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after first-line TKI therapy were compared between groups using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. The predictive impact of the PD components was evaluated using multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Among the 116 patients included, 80 (69.0%) had TLG, 18 (15.5%) NTLG, and 69 (58.6%) NLA. The mean PFS and OS were shorter for patients with TLG than those without TLG (PFS, 7.1 vs. 11.6 months, p = 0.0071; OS, 18.2 vs. 25.5 months, p = 0.0091). TLG was an independent predictor of PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.51; p = 0.0395) and OS (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.02-2.83; p = 0.040). NTLG and NLA were not associated with survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective single-center study, patients with TLG had poor survival after first-line TKI therapy for mRCC. Thus, individual components of PD influence patient prognosis.

Second line therapy with axitinib after only prior sunitinib in metastatic renal cell cancer: Italian multicenter real world SAX study final results

BACKGROUND

This multi-institutional retrospective real life study was conducted in 22 Italian Oncology Centers and evaluated the role of Axitinib in second line treatment in not selected mRCC patients.

METHODS

148 mRCC patients were evaluated. According to Heng score 15.5%, 60.1% and 24.4% of patients were at poor risk, intermediate and favorable risk, respectively.

RESULTS

PFS, OS, DCR and ORR were 7.14 months, 15.5 months, 70.6% and 16.6%, respectively. The duration of prior sunitinib treatment correlated with a longer significant mPFS, 8.8 vs 6.3 months, respectively. Axitinib therapy was safe, without grade 4 adverse events. The most frequent toxicities of all grades were: fatigue (50%), hypertension (26%), and hypothyroidism (18%). G3 blood pressure elevation significantly correlated with longer mPFS and mOS compared to G1-G2 or no toxicity. Dose titration (DT) to 7 mg and 10 mg bid was feasible in 24% with no statistically significant differences in mPFS and mOS. The sunitinib-axitinib sequence was safe and effective, the mOS was 41.15 months. At multivariate analysis, gender, DCR to axitinib and to previous sunitinib correlated significantly with PFS; whereas DCR to axitinib, nephrectomy and Heng score independently affected overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Axitinib was effective and safe in a not selected real life mRCC population. Trial registration INT - Napoli - 11/16 oss. Registered 20 April 2016. http://www.istitutotumori.na.it.

A Phase II, single-arm trial of neoadjuvant axitinib plus avelumab in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma who are at high risk of relapse after nephrectomy (NEOAVAX)

Surgery is the standard treatment for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma. Despite curative intent, patients with a high risk of relapse have a 5-year metastasis-free survival rate of only 30% and prevention of recurrence is an unmet need. In a Phase III trial (JAVELIN Renal 101), progression-free survival of axitinib + avelumab was superior to sunitinib with a favorable objective response rate and no added toxicity profiles as known for axitinib or avelumab single agent. NEOAVAX is designed as open label, single arm, Phase II trial with a Simon’s two-stage design evaluating neoadjuvant axitinib + avelumab followed by complete surgical resection in 40 patients with high-risk nonmetastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Primary end point is remission of the primary tumor (RECIST 1.1; Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) following neoadjuvant therapy. Secondary end points include disease-free survival, overall survival, rate of metastasis and local recurrence, safety, and tolerability. Exploratory end points include investigation of effects on neoangiogenesis, immune infiltrates and myeloid-derived suppressor cell components to support a rationale for the combined use of axitinib and avelumab (NCT03341845).

Metastatic Tumor Burden and Loci as Predictors of First Line Sunitinib Treatment Efficacy in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of baseline tumor burden and loci on the efficacy of first line renal cancer treatment with sunitinib. Baseline and on-treatment CT scans were evaluated. Both the Kaplan-Meier and Weibull modelling survival estimators have been used to describe sunitinib treatment response. Logistic regression was used to confirm associations between tumor site, burden and survival. Additionally, analysis of the metastases co-occurrence was conducted using the Bayesian inference on treated and external validation cohorts. 100 patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were treated with sunitinib in this study. Presence of metastases in the abdominal region (HR = 3.93), and the number of brain metastases correlate with shorter PFS, while the presence of thoracic metastases (HR = 0.47) with longer PFS. Localization of metastases in the abdominal region significantly impacts risk of metastases development in other locations including bone and brain metastases. Biology of metastases, in particular their localization, requires further molecular and clinical investigation.

Current status of prognostic factors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

In recent years, the induction of novel agents, including molecular-targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors, have dramatically changed therapeutic options and their outcomes for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Several prognostic models based on the data of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted agents or cytokine therapy have been useful in real clinical practice. Serum or peripheral blood markers related to inflammatory response have been reported to be associated with their prognosis or therapeutic efficacy. In addition to them, investigation for novel predictive factors that represent the efficacy of agents, the risk of adverse events and the prognosis are required for the advance of therapeutic strategies. The present review discusses the conventional prognostic models and clinical factors, and recent advances of the identification of some of the most promising molecules as novel biomarkers for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Correlation between the magnitude of best tumor response and patient survival in nivolumab therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

The correlation between the magnitudes of best tumor response (bTR) and patient survival in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains unclear. In this article, we retrospectively investigated the prognostic association of the magnitude of bTR in nivolumab therapy for mRCC. Fifty-five patients treated with nivolumab after failure of at least one molecular-targeted therapy were evaluated. Assessment of the magnitude of bTR was based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v.1.1. Endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after the initiation of nivolumab therapy. In regard to the magnitude of bTR, complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease were observed in three (5.46%), 15 (27.3%), 19 (34.5%), and 18 (32.7%) patients, respectively. PFS and OS were significantly correlated with the magnitude of bTR (median PFS: not reached (N.R.) [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.8-N.R.] vs. 13.0 [8.38-56.0] vs. 5.95 [4.27-7.30] vs. 1.92 [0.53-3.91] months, p < 0.0001; OS: N.R. [N.R.-N.R.] vs. N.R. [21.4-N.R.] vs. 23.3 [23.3-N.R.] vs. 7.36 [1.41-N.R.] months, p < 0.0001). In addition, multivariate analyses show that the magnitude of bTR was an independent factor for PFS (p < 0.0001) and OS (p = 0.0010). In conclusion, this retrospective study shows the significant correlation between the magnitude of bTR and patient survival in nivolumab therapy for mRCC. The magnitude of bTR can be an effective surrogate marker for survival.

Lenvatinib plus everolimus or pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: study design and rationale

AIM

Lenvatinib plus everolimus is approved for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated promising antitumor activity in a Phase I/II trial of RCC.

METHODS

We describe the rationale and design of the CLEAR study, a three-arm Phase III trial comparing lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib monotherapy for first-line treatment of RCC. Eligible patients must have advanced clear cell RCC and must not have received any prior systemic anticancer therapy. The primary end point is progression-free survival; secondary end points include objective response rate, overall survival, safety, health-related quality of life and pharmacokinetics. Biomarker evaluations are included as exploratory end points.

Second-line treatment after sunitinib therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma: a comparison of axitinib and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors

This retrospective study compared the outcomes of sequential therapy using sunitinib followed by axitinib or the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors (everolimus or temsirolimus). Among 234 patients treated with molecular-targeted drugs for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, we selected 137 patients treated with sunitinib as the first-line therapy. We then compared patients treated with axitinib (n = 52) or mTOR inhibitors (n = 31), as the second-line treatment, and investigated the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The PFS of axitinib-treated patients (median 8.7 months) was superior to that of mTOR inhibitors-treated patients (median 3.4 months; P = 0.001). Additionally, the OS from baseline of axitinib-treated patients (median 69 months) was superior to that of mTOR inhibitors-treated patients (median 33.4 months; P = 0.034). A multivariate analysis was performed with the following factors: the drugs used for the second-line treatment, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk classification during the initial treatment, whether the discontinuation of the first-line treatment was due to adverse events, and whether the duration of response of the first-line treatment was less than 6 or 12 months. Importantly, the drugs used for the second-line treatment and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk classification were independent factors. Our findings suggest that axitinib works better than mTOR inhibitors after the first-line treatment with sunitinib.

Imaging Advances in the Management of Kidney Cancer

New developments in cross-sectional imaging, including contrast-enhanced ultrasound, dual-energy computed tomography, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, single-photon emission computed tomography, and positron emission tomography, together with novel application of existing and novel radiotracers, have changed the landscape of renal mass characterization (ie, virtual biopsy) as well as the detection of metastatic disease, prognostication, and response assessment in patients with advanced kidney cancer. A host of imaging response criteria have been developed to characterize the response to targeted and immune therapies and correlate with patient outcomes, each with strengths and limitations. Recent efforts to advance the field are aimed at increasing objectivity with quantitative techniques and the use of banks of imaging data to match the vast genomic data that are becoming available. The emerging field of radiogenomics has the potential to transform further the role of imaging in kidney cancer management through eventual noninvasive characterization of the tumor histology and genetic microenvironment in single renal masses and/or metastatic disease. We review of the effect of currently available imaging techniques in the management of patients with kidney cancer, including localized, locally advanced, and metastatic disease.

[Risk-adapted (immuno)therapy for renal cell carcinoma]

The introduction of immunotherapy into the therapeutic algorithm of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) represents the most recent expansion of the therapy landscape. This provides a new therapeutic axis in addition to targeted therapies. At the same time, the development of new tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has led to an improvement in the effectiveness of targeted therapies. Cabozantinib and tivozanib are two new first-line options that redefine the existing therapy algorithm. The importance of the checkpoint blockade in the first line is clinically undisputed; however, approval of the immune combination ipilimumab + nivolumab has not yet been granted. An important task now is to offer risk-adapted therapy in order to optimally balance efficacy and risks of systemic therapy, thereby ensuring the best possible individual therapy.

Tumor growth velocity: A modified tumor growth rate defining tumor progression during sorafenib treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the role of tumor growth velocity in defining tumor progression in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with the vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, sorafenib.

METHODS

A modified calculation for tumor growth velocity was introduced to evaluate the tumor growth velocity, before and after sorafenib withdrawal. Known prognostic factors together with tumor growth velocity before drug withdrawal and tumor growth velocity after drug withdrawal were compared using a χ² -test from a contingency table, and partial likelihood test from a Cox regression model for overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients who reached progressive disease and withdrew from sorafenib were enrolled after a median follow-up period of 107.8 months. Tumor growth velocity before drug withdrawal was 7.347 ± 4.040, and tumor growth velocity after drug withdrawal was 11.647 ± 5.937 (P < 0.001). Higher tumor growth velocity before drug withdrawal was correlated with a higher risk Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center score (P = 0.022), Karnofsky Performance Status <80 (P = 0.028), non-clear cell carcinoma (P = 0.037), higher tumor nucleus grade (P < 0.001) and best treatment response (P < 0.001). Patients with tumor growth velocity before drug withdrawal >5.0 had shorter overall survival (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with overall survival were high/intermediate Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (hazard ratio 2.119, P = 0.006), non-clear histological subtype (hazard ratio 1.900, P = 0.031), tumor growth velocity before drug withdrawal ≥5.0 (hazard ratio 2.758, P < 0.001) and progressive disease as best response (hazard ratio 2.069, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly faster tumor growth can be observed if sorafenib is discontinued in the case of disease progression. Thus, we suggest not to withdraw targeted agents until tumor growth velocity is >5.0.

miR-9-5p in Nephrectomy Specimens is a Potential Predictor of Primary Resistance to First-Line Treatment with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Approximately 20–30% of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in first-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) do not respond due to primary resistance to this drug. At present, suitable robust biomarkers for prediction of a response are not available. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate a panel of microRNAs (miRNAs) in nephrectomy specimens for use as predictive biomarkers for TKI resistance. Archived formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded nephrectomy samples from 60 mRCC patients treated with first-line TKIs (sunitinib, n = 51; pazopanib, n = 6; sorafenib, n = 3) were categorized into responders and non-responders. Using the standard Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, patients with progressive disease within 3 months after the start of treatment with TKI were considered as non-responders and those patients with stable disease and complete or partial response under the TKI treatment for at least 6 months as responders. Based on a miRNA microarray expression profile in the two stratified groups of patients, seven differentially expressed miRNAs were validated using droplet digital reverse-transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assays in the two groups. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and binary logistic regression of response prediction were performed. MiR-9-5p and miR-489-3p were able to discriminate between the two groups. MiR-9-5p, as the most significant miRNA, improved the correct prediction of primary resistance against TKIs in comparison to that of conventional clinicopathological variables. The results of the decision curve analyses, Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox regression analyses confirmed the potential of miR-9-5p in the prediction of response to TKIs and the prediction of progression-free survival after the initiation of TKI treatment.

Sunitinib induces early histomolecular changes in a subset of renal cancer cells that contribute to resistance

Sunitinib is the standard-of-care, first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Characteristics of treatment-resistant RCC have been described; however, complex tumor adaptation mechanisms obstruct the identification of significant operators in resistance. We hypothesized that resistance is a late manifestation of early, treatment-induced histomolecular alterations; therefore, studying early drug response may identify drivers of resistance. We describe an epithelioid RCC growth pattern in RCC xenografts, which emerges in sunitinib-sensitive tumors and is augmented during resistance. This growth modality is molecularly and morphologically related to the RCC spheroids that advance during in vitro treatment. Based on time-lapse microscopy, mRNA and microRNA screening, and tumor behavior-related characteristics, we propose that the spheroid and adherent RCC growth patterns differentially respond to sunitinib. Gene expression analysis indicated that sunitinib promoted spheroid formation, which provided a selective survival advantage under treatment. Functional studies confirm that E-cadherin is a key contributor to the survival of RCC cells under sunitinib treatment. In summary, we suggest that sunitinib-resistant RCC cells exist in treatment-sensitive tumors and are histologically identifiable.-Lichner, Z., Saleeb, R., Butz, H., Ding, Q., Nofech-Mozes, R., Riad, S., Farag, M., Varkouhi, A. K., dos Santos, C. C., Kapus, A., Yousef, G. M. Sunitinib induces early histomolecular changes in a subset of renal cancer cells that contribute to resistance.

Network meta-analysis of second-line treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: efficacy and safety

This paper aims to compare the approved second-line treatment options in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A network meta-analysis (NMA) using the frequentist approach and generalized pairwise modeling was computed for the approved drugs in this setting. The results of this NMA showed that the combination of lenvatinib and everolimus yielded the lowest hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (HR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.21–0.75) and overall survival (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.30–1.00). The great efficacy of this combination is limited by the prevalence of grade 3–4 adverse events (70.6%) leading to treatment discontinuation in 17.6%. This NMA is to the best of our knowledge, the first analysis of the approved regimens for the second-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Imaging Response of Antiangiogenic and Immune-Oncology Drugs in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC): Current Status and Future Challenges

This report aims to review criteria which have been proposed for treatment evaluation in mRCC under anti-angiogenic and immune-oncologic therapies and discuss future challenges for imagers. RECIST criteria seem to only partially reflect the clinical benefit derived from anti-angiogenic drugs in mRCC. New methods of analysis propose to better evaluate response to these drugs, including a new threshold for size criteria (-10%), attenuation (Choi and modified Choi criteria), functional imaging techniques (perfusion CT, ultrasound or MRI), and new PET radiotracers. Imaging of progression is one of the main future challenges facing imagers. It is progression and not response that will trigger changes in therapy, therefore it is tumour progression that should be identified by imaging techniques to guide the oncologist on the most appropriate time to change therapy. Yet little is known on dynamics of tumour progression, and much data still needs to be accrued to understand it. Finally, as immunotherapies develop, flare or pseudo-progression phenomena are observed. Studies need to be performed to determine whether imaging can distinguish between patients undergoing pseudo-progression for which therapy should be continued, or true progression for which the treatment must be changed.

Characterization of Patients With Poor-Risk Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma: Results From a Pooled Clinical Trials Database

BACKGROUND

Poor-risk patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma remain poorly characterized in prospective clinical trials. Therefore, we sought to provide a comprehensive analysis of this patient population, defined by 3 widely used prognostic models, treated with targeted therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a pooled retrospective analysis of 4736 metastatic renal-cell carcinoma patients treated on phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. Poor-risk patients were defined according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC), and Hudes risk models. Baseline characteristics, overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate, and adverse events were reported in poor-risk patients defined by each of the 3 models. The concordance (C)-index was used to assess the prognostic performance of the models. A subset of poor-risk patients who continued to receive treatment for > 12 months was characterized.

RESULTS

Overall, we identified 1145 (24%), 904 (19%), and 1901 (40%) poor-risk patients by the IMDC, MSKCC, and Hudes models, respectively. Median overall survival was 8.5 months, 7.5 months, and 10.6 months; and median progression-free survival was 3.7 months, 3.5 months, and 4.2 months in the IMDC, MSKCC, and Hudes models, respectively. The objective response rate ranged between 10% and 14%. Additionally, 9% to 14% of poor-risk patients continued to receive treatment for > 12 months. Most importantly, the C-index was 0.826, 0.830, and 0.825 in the IMDC, MSKCC, and Hudes risk models, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate that poor-risk patients continue to have dismal outcomes and warrant alternative treatment strategies to help improve outcomes. A subset of patients experienced prolonged clinical benefit and should be further explored.

Axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: beyond the second-line setting

Treatment options for advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma have advanced considerably in the past decade with the approval of several targeted agents, including axitinib. Axitinib is a potent and selective inhibitor of VEGFRs 1-3, and is well established as second-line treatment. This article summarizes factors to be considered when administering axitinib, such as individualized dose titration and axitinib-associated adverse events, in order to retain patients longer on treatment, which would likely lead to improved efficacy outcomes. In addition, potential clinical perspectives for axitinib beyond the second-line setting, including its role in the first-line setting, sequential therapy, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies, and combination therapy with immunotherapy, in particular, immune checkpoint inhibitors, are discussed.

Long-Term Response to Sunitinib Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Pooled Analysis of Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

We characterized clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib who were long-term responders (LTRs), defined as patients having progression-free survival (PFS) > 18 months.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from 5714 patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib in 8 phase II/III clinical trials and the expanded access program. Duration on-study and objective response rate (ORR) were compared between LTRs and patients with PFS ≤ 18 months ("others"). PFS and overall survival (OS) were summarized using Kaplan-Meier methodology.

RESULTS

Overall, 898 (15.7%) patients achieved a long-term response and 4816 (84.3%) patients did not achieve long-term response. The median (range) duration on-study was 28.6 (16.8-70.7) months in LTRs and 5.5 (0-68.8) months in others. ORR was 51% in LTRs versus 14% in others (P < .0001). Median PFS in LTRs was 32.11 months and median OS was not reached. LTRs had higher percentage of early tumor shrinkage ≥ 10% at the first scan (67.1% vs. 51.2%; P = .0018) and greater median maximum on-study tumor shrinkage from baseline (-56.9 vs. -27.1; P < .0001) versus others. White race, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, time from diagnosis to treatment ≥ 1 year, clear cell histology, no liver metastasis, lactate dehydrogenase ≤ 1.5 upper limit of normal (ULN), corrected calcium ≤ 10 mg/dL, hemoglobin greater than the lower limit of normal, platelets less than or equal to ULN, body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2, and low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio were associated with LTR.

CONCLUSION

A subset of patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib achieved long-term response. LTRs had improved ORR, PFS, and OS.

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.

Predictive Factors for Second-Line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis

Currently, about 50% of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receive a second-line therapy. Therefore, the choice at each subsequent treatment line remains an important issue. In this retrospective study, we sought to identify pretreatment clinical parameters that could predict the likelihood of a patient receiving a second-line therapy. One hundred and sixty-one mRCC patients who received targeted therapy were evaluated. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan–Meier overall survival (OS), Cox regression, and binary logistic regression models were used for data analysis. Second-line therapy was given to 105 patients (65%). Patients with grade 1 tumor received second-line therapy more frequently than those with grade 2/3 tumors (P = 0.03). Only tumor grade was significantly different between patients receiving, or not receiving, second-line treatment. Median OS was significantly superior in patients receiving second-line therapy (32 versus 14 months; P = 0.007; hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; P = 0.008), patients with grade 1 tumors (130 versus 29 months in G2/3 tumors; HR, 3.85; P = 0.009), and in patients without early tumor progression (41 versus 11 months; HR, 5.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.06–8.31; P < 0.001). In binary logistic regression, we identified early progression to be significantly associated with a higher probability of not receiving a second-line therapy (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.01–6.21; P = 0.048). This study hypothesizes that pretreatment grade and early progression are predictive parameters for the selection of patients for second-line therapy.

Sunitinib: Ten Years of Successful Clinical Use and Study in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

The oral multikinase inhibitor sunitinib malate was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January 2006 for use in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Since then, it has been approved globally for this indication and for patients with imatinib-resistant or -intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumors and advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. As we mark the 10-year anniversary of the beginning of the era of targeted therapy, and specifically the approval of sunitinib, it is worthwhile to highlight the progress that has been made in advanced RCC as it relates to the study of sunitinib. We present the key trials and data for sunitinib that established it as a reference standard of care for first-line advanced RCC therapy and, along with other targeted agents, significantly altered the treatment landscape in RCC. Moreover, we discuss the research with sunitinib that has sought to refine its role via patient selection and prognostic markers, improve dosing and adverse event management, and identify predictive efficacy biomarkers, plus the extent to which this research has contributed to the overall understanding and management of RCC. We also explore the key learnings regarding study design and data interpretation from the sunitinib studies and how these findings and the sunitinib development program, in general, can be a model for successful development of other agents. Finally, ongoing research into the continued and future role of sunitinib in RCC management is discussed.

THE ONCOLOGIST

2017;22:41-52 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Approved globally, sunitinib is established as a standard of care for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) therapy and, along with other targeted agents, has significantly altered the treatment landscape in RCC. Research with sunitinib that has sought to refine its role via patient selection and prognostic markers, improve dosing and adverse event management, and identify predictive efficacy biomarkers has contributed to the overall understanding and management of RCC. Key learnings regarding study design and data interpretation from the sunitinib studies and the sunitinib development program, in general, can be a model for the successful development of other agents.

Axitinib after Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cancer: Preliminary Results from Italian "Real-World" SAX Study

Axitinib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor, currently approved for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after failure of prior treatment with Sunitinib or cytokine. The present study is an Italian Multi-Institutional Retrospective Analysis that evaluated the outcomes of Axitinib, in second-line treatment of mRCC. The medical records of 62 patients treated with Axitinib, were retrospectively reviewed. The Progression Free Survival (PFS), the Overall Survival (OS), the Objective Response Rate (ORR), the Disease Control Rate (DCR), and the safety profile of axitinib and sunitinib–axitinib sequence, were the primary endpoint. The mPFS was 5.83 months (95% CI 3.93–7.73 months). When patients was stratified by Heng score, mPFS was 5.73, 5.83, 10.03 months according to poor, intermediate, and favorable risk group, respectively. The mOS from the start of axitinib was 13.3 months (95% CI 8.6–17.9 months); the observed ORR and DCR were 25 and 71%, respectively. When stratified patients by subgroups defined by duration of prior therapy with Sunitinib (≤ vs. >median duration), there was a statistically significant difference in mPFS with 8.9 (95% CI 4.39–13.40 months) vs. 5.46 months (95% CI 4.04–6.88 months) for patients with a median duration of Sunitinib >13.2 months. DCR and ORR to previous Sunitinib treatment was associated with longer statistically mPFS, 7.23 (95% CI 3.95–10.51 months, p = 0.01) and 8.67 (95% CI 4.0–13.33 months, p = 0.008) vs. 2.97 (95% CI 0.65–5.27 months, p = 0.01) and 2.97 months (95% CI 0.66–5.28 months, p = 0.01), respectively. Overall Axitinib at standard schedule of 5 mg bid, was well-tolerated. The most common adverse events of all grades were fatig (25.6%), hypertension (22.6%), gastro-intestinal disorders (25.9%), and hypothyroidism (16.1%). The sequence Sunitinib–Axitinib was well-tolerated without worsening in side effects, with a median OS of 34.7 months (95% CI 18.4–51.0 months). Our results are consistent with the available literature; this retrospective analysis confirms that Axitinib is effective and safe in routine clinical practice.

Effect of the timing of best tumor shrinkage on survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the association between the timing of best tumor shrinkage (bTS) and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patient survival after first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy.

METHODS

The tumors of 91 patients with mRCC showed a response to TKIs. None of the patients had received prior cytokine therapy. The magnitude of bTS was categorized according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v. 1.1. The patients were divided into two subgroups according to the timing of bTS: early responders (≤3 months) and late responders (>3 months). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after first-line TKI therapy were evaluated, and factors predicting survival were examined.

RESULTS

Sunitinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib were used in 62, 25, and 4 responders, respectively. In total, 52 (57.1 %) and 39 (42.9 %) patients were early and late responders, respectively. Early responders had significantly lower PFS compared to late responders (median survival, 11.4 vs. 19.1 months; log-rank test, p = 0.0263), although there were no significant differences in the OS of early and late responders (27.0 vs. 30.1 months, p = 0.306). Multivariate analyses revealed that the timing of bTS was an independent predictor of PFS and OS (PFS, hazard ratio 4.09, p < 0.0001; OS, hazard ratio 2.32, p = 0.0107).

CONCLUSION

The timing of bTS was an independent predictor of survival in patients with mRCC who received first-line TKIs.

Early Tumour Shrinkage: A Tool for the Detection of Early Clinical Activity in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The predictive role of objective remission remains undefined for targeted agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, early tumour shrinkage (eTS) was shown to be predictive and/or prognostic for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in mRCC in several small studies.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the degree of eTS following systemic therapy that may predict survival in mRCC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Data from 4334 patients with mRCC in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials between 2003 and 2013 were pooled for analyses. Early tumour shrinkage was assessed based on percentage change in sum of the longest diameters of target lesions at first postbaseline scan. Patients were categorised by a more or equal versus less optimal threshold of eTS, assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. OS and PFS in patients with eTS were summarised using the Kaplan-Meier method.

INTERVENTION

Axitinib, bevacizumab, interferon α, sorafenib, sunitinib, or temsirolimus.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We measured optimal thresholds of eTS and eTS as a predictor of OS or PFS.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Optimal threshold of eTS for the prediction of OS and PFS was determined to be approximately 10%. In Cox proportional hazards models, compared with patients without eTS, those with eTS had significantly longer OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.615; p<0.0001; median: 28.5 vs 16.0 mo) and PFS (HR: 0.628; p<0.0001; median: 10.5 vs 5.3 mo). The major limitation was the retrospective nature of our analysis, including different lines and types of therapy, although subset analyses detected a similar predictive pattern for eTS across all lines and types of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Early tumour shrinkage ≥10% at first postbaseline assessment could serve as a putative early end point in patients with mRCC. A prospective evaluation of eTS in clinical trials is warranted.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Early tumour shrinkage may be used to identify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who would benefit from treatment with antitumour agents.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The clinical trials are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00267748, NCT00338884, NCT00835978, NCT00065468, NCT00083889, NCT00631371, NCT00920816, NCT00077974, NCT00137423, NCT00054886, NCT00678392, and NCT00474786).

Checkpoint Blockade - a New Treatment Paradigm in Renal Cell Carcinoma

Nivolumab is the first checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is in line for approval in Europe. Despite its novelty in the treatment algorithm of RCC, it offers a whole new strategy of therapy management with safe applicability. The aim of this work was to review current data on checkpoint inhibitors in RCC and discuss future perspectives for this novel approach in RCC. A selective literature search was performed in the Pubmed database: Nivolumab is a first-in-class agent for the treatment of RCC, and its European label is anticipated for 2016. Contrary to many other agents, nivolumab was able to show a benefit in overall survival and health-related quality of life when compared to everolimus. Current trials focus on optimizing and expanding its use to metastatic RCC. In conclusion, nivolumab has already acquired a role in the treatment algorithm of RCC. However, which patient population derives the most benefit as well its optimal use in the treatment algorithm remain to be determined. A number of ongoing trials will provide novel insights and might help to untangle this novel network of therapy management for immunotherapies.