Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Starting Doses of Lenvatinib Plus Everolimus in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial

Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Combination With Other Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib, both as monotherapy and in combination with other (tyrosine kinase inhibitors) TKIs, compared with other TKIs in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatment.

METHODS

We searched for relevant studies from inception to February 2024 using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Eligible studies reported on the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib alone or in combination with other TKIs versus other TKIs for metastatic RCC. Primary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs), and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Lenvatinib, especially in combination therapies, significantly improved PFS (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.38-0.54, P<0.001) and OS (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.91, P<0.001) compared with other TKIs. Quality of life analyses showed mixed results, with EQ-5D demonstrating significant improvement (HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.90-1.53, P<0.001), while EORTC QLQ-C30 was not statistically significant. ORR analysis indicated a higher likelihood of achieving a complete or partial response with lenvatinib (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.15-2.93, P=0.00). The analysis of total AEs above grade 3 showed no significant difference between lenvatinib and other TKIs (OR: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.06, P=0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Lenvatinib significantly enhances survival outcomes in metastatic RCC patients compared with other TKIs. While associated with various adverse events, its safety profile is comparable to other TKIs.

Disproportionality analysis of cardiac adverse events associated with lenvatinib using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database

AIMS

This study was conducted to examine disproportionality, times to onset, incidence rates and outcomes of lenvatinib-associated cardiac adverse events (AEs) using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.

METHODS

We analysed data for the period between April 2004 and May 2023. Data on cardiac AEs were extracted and the relative disproportionality of AEs was estimated using reporting odds ratios (RORs). Furthermore, Weibull distribution parameters were calculated.

RESULTS

Of the 2 230 863 reports analysed, we identified 7684 reports of AEs associated with lenvatinib, including 317 cardiac AEs. Signals were detected for eight cardiac AEs: hypertension, cardiac failure, myocarditis, myocardial infarction, immune-mediated myocarditis, cardiomyopathy, angina unstable and cardiotoxicity. Among these, fatal outcomes were observed for cardiac failure, myocarditis and myocardial infarction. Histograms of median times to onset for the eight detected cardiac AE signals showed that AEs occurred at a median of 3.5-134.5 days after lenvatinib administration. The Weibull distributions showed that cardiac failure occurred early after administration (early failure type), myocarditis occurred in a dose-dependent manner (wearout failure type), and myocardial infarction occurred constantly throughout the exposure period (random failure type).

CONCLUSIONS

We focused on cardiac AEs associated with lenvatinib as post-marketing AEs. Serious outcomes can arise after lenvatinib administration. Patients should be monitored for signs of onset of these AEs not only at the start of administration, but also over an extended period.

Cabozantinib and nivolumab with or without live bacterial supplementation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomized phase 1 trial

Supplementation with CBM588, a bifidogenic live bacterial product, has been associated with improved clinical outcomes in persons with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab. However, its effect on those receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based combinations is unknown. In this open-label, randomized, investigator-initiated, phase 1 study, 30 participants with locally advanced or mRCC with histological confirmation of clear cell, papillary or sarcomatoid component were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to receive cabozantinib (an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, MET and AXL) and nivolumab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1) with or without CBM588 as first-line treatment. Metagenomic sequencing was performed on stool samples to characterize their gut microbiome at baseline and 13 weeks into treatment. The primary endpoint was a change in the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp.; secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity profile. The primary endpoint of the study was not met and the addition of CBM588 to cabozantinib and nivolumab did not result in a difference in the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. or alpha diversity (as measured by the Shannon index). However, ORR was significantly higher in participants treated with CBM588 compared to those in the control arm (14 of 19, 74% versus 2 of 10, 20%; P = 0.01). PFS at 6 months was 84% (16 of 19) and 60% (6 of 10) in the experimental and control arms, respectively. No significant difference in toxicity profile was seen between the study arms. Our results provide a preliminary signal of improved clinical activity with CBM588 in treatment-naive participants with mRCC receiving cabozantinib and nivolumab. Further investigation is needed to confirm these findings and better characterize the underlying mechanism driving this effect.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05122546.

Adverse renal outcomes following targeted therapies in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: To clarify the prevalence of adverse renal outcomes following targeted therapies in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Methods: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Library. Studies that had reported adverse renal outcomes following targeted therapies in RCC were eligible. Outcomes included adverse renal outcomes defined as either renal dysfunction as evidenced by elevated serum creatinine levels or the diagnosis of acute kidney injury, or proteinuria as indicated by abnormal urine findings. The risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane handbook guidelines. Publication bias was assessed using Funnel plot analysis and Egger Test. Results: The occurrences of the examined outcomes, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were combined using a random-effects model. In all, 23 studies including 10 RCTs and 13 observational cohort studies were included. The pooled incidence of renal dysfunction and proteinuria following targeted therapies in RCC were 17% (95% CI: 12%-22%; I2 = 88.5%, p < 0.01) and 29% (95% CI: 21%-38%; I2 = 93.2%, p < 0.01), respectively. The pooled incidence of both types of adverse events varied substantially across different regimens. Occurrence is more often in polytherapy compared to monotherapy. The majority of adverse events were rated as CTCAE grades 1 or 2 events. Four studies were assessed as having low risk of bias. Conclusion: Adverse renal outcomes reflected by renal dysfunction and proteinuria following targeted therapies in RCC are not uncommon and are more often observed in polytherapy compared to monotherapy. The majority of the adverse events were of mild severity. Systematic Review Registration: Identifier CRD42023441979.

[Advanced renal cell carcinoma - an overview of current systemic therapy]

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the more common tumor diseases in older adults. The only curative treatment method is surgical resection in the localized stage. Based on current study data, drug (combination) therapy in the metastatic stage is the most effective treatment option for non-resectable/metastatic RCC (mRCC). Immuno-oncological combinations of 2 Checkpoint-Inhibitors (CPI) or CPIs and Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are now standard in the first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Since the results of foundational combination therapy studies are not fully comparable due to different study design and patient populations, additional clinical and patient-related criteria are required when making individual treatment decisions. The systemic therapy of advanced RCC is therefore based on tumor extent, treatment pressure, concomitant diseases, and personal circumstances. A decision on first-line therapy should be made individually as part of a "shared decision" with the patient. The selection of a second-line systemic therapy is based on individual criteria; the data available for a well-founded classification of a possible therapy sequence after progression to first-line therapy is sparse. Further investigations to optimize systemic therapy (expansion of combination therapy to triple combination of CPI+CPI+TKI) or evaluation of therapy in other histological subtypes of renal cell carcinoma are the subject of ongoing clinical studies.

Vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma pretreated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify evidence for use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based therapy.

METHODS

This was a PRISMA-standard systematic literature review; registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255568). Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (January 28, 2021; updated September 13, 2022) to identify publications reporting efficacy/effectiveness and safety/tolerability evidence for anti-VEGF treatment in patients with RCC who had received prior CPI therapy.

RESULTS

Of 2,639 publications screened, 48 were eligible and featured 2,759 patients treated in trials and 2,209 in real-world studies (RWS). Most patients with available data were treated with anti-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens (trials: 93 %; RWS: 100 %), most commonly cabozantinib, which accounted for 46 % of trial and 62 % of RWS patients in publications with available data. Collectively, there was consistent evidence of anti-VEGF treatment activity after prior CPI therapy. Activity was reported for all anti-VEGF regimens and regardless of prior CPI-based regimen. No new safety signals were detected for subsequent anti-VEGF therapy; no studies suggested increased immune-related adverse events associated with prior CPI therapy. The results were limited by data quality; study heterogeneity prohibited meta-analyses.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available data (most commonly for cabozantinib), anti-VEGF therapy appears to be a rational treatment choice in patients with RCC who have progressed despite prior CPI-based therapy. Results from ongoing trials of combination anti-VEGF plus CPI regimen post prior CPI therapy trials will contribute more definitive evidence.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Anticancer treatments that work by reducing levels of a substance in the body called Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor are known as anti-VEGF drugs. Reducing VEGF levels helps to reduce blood supply to tumors, which can slow the speed at which the cancer grows. Some other types of anticancer drugs that help the immune system to fight cancer cells are called checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we looked at published studies that investigated how anti-VEGF drugs work, and what side effects they cause, in people who have already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors for a type of kidney cancer called renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to summarize the available evidence to help doctors decide how best to use anti-VEGF drugs in these patients. We found 48 studies that included almost 5,000 patients. The results of the studies showed that anti-VEGF drugs have anticancer effects in people with renal cell carcinoma who had already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors. All of the VEGF-targeting drugs had anticancer effects, irrespective of what checkpoint inhibitor treatment people had received before. There were different amounts of evidence available for the different anti-VEGF drugs. The anti-VEGF cabozantinib had the largest amount of evidence. Importantly, previous checkpoint inhibitor treatment did not seem to affect the number or type of side-effects associated with anti-VEGF drugs. Results from ongoing, well-designed studies will be helpful to confirm these results. Our findings may be useful for doctors considering using anti-VEGF drugs in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have received checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

Managing Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma after Progression on Immunotherapy

Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) lacks standardization, with limited evidence from small trials and retrospective data. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibition through tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is the most widely adopted second-line treatment. Encouraging results have been seen with VEGFR-TKIs in the second-line after exposure to an ICI-based combination, achieving a response rate of 30%, and 75% of patients achieving disease control. Rechallenge with ICI alone seems safe but has limited clinical benefit. Promising regimens with combination therapies and novel drugs are being evaluated in phase 3 trials.

Metabolic adverse events of multitarget kinase inhibitors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Multitargeted kinase inhibitors (MKIs) are used for the treatment of several cancers. By targeting multiple signaling pathways, MKIs have become cornerstones of the oncologic treatment. Although their use leads to important results in terms of survival, treatment with MKIs can determine important side effects the clinician must be aware of. Among those, arterial hypertension, mucositis and skin lesions are universally reported, while data about metabolic alterations are scarce. In our review, we focused on glucose and lipid alterations in MKI-treated patients.

METHODS

We searched for articles, published between January 2012 and December 2022, evaluating the effects on lipid and glucose metabolism of four MKIs (Cabozantinib, Lenvatinib, Sorafenib, and Vandetanib) in adult patients with cancer. We focused on drugs approved for thyroid malignancies, since a worse metabolic control may potentially impact life expectancy, due to their better overall survival rate.

RESULTS

As for glucose metabolism, the majority of the studies reported elevation of glucose levels (prevalence: 1-17%) with different grades of severity, including death. As for cholesterol, 12 studies reported worsening or new-onset hypercholesterolemia (prevalence: 4-40%). Finally, 19 studies reported different grades of hypertriglyceridemia (prevalence: 1-86%), sometimes leading to life-threatening events.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some inherent limitations, our analysis may cast light upon some of the MKIs metabolic disorders that can impact on patients' health, especially when long-term survival is expected. Future clinical trials should consider routine assessment of glucose and lipid levels, because underdetection and underreporting of alterations can lead to the overlooking of important adverse events.

Temporary treatment cessation versus continuation of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (STAR): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial

BACKGROUND

Temporary drug treatment cessation might alleviate toxicity without substantially compromising efficacy in patients with cancer. We aimed to determine if a tyrosine kinase inhibitor drug-free interval strategy was non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy for first-line treatment of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

This open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial was done at 60 hospital sites in the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had histologically confirmed clear cell renal cell carcinoma, inoperable loco-regional or metastatic disease, no previous systemic therapy for advanced disease, uni-dimensionally assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours-defined measurable disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) at baseline to a conventional continuation strategy or drug-free interval strategy using a central computer-generated minimisation programme incorporating a random element. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic group risk factor, sex, trial site, age, disease status, tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and previous nephrectomy. All patients received standard dosing schedules of oral sunitinib (50 mg per day) or oral pazopanib (800 mg per day) for 24 weeks before moving into their randomly allocated group. Patients allocated to the drug-free interval strategy group then had a treatment break until disease progression, when treatment was re-instated. Patients in the conventional continuation strategy group continued treatment. Patients, treating clinicians, and the study team were aware of treatment allocation. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the overall survival hazard ratio (HR) was 0·812 or higher and if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the marginal difference in mean QALYs was -0·156 or higher. The co-primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which included all randomly assigned patients, and the per-protocol population, which excluded patients in the ITT population with major protocol violations and who did not begin their randomisation allocation as per the protocol. Non-inferiority was to be concluded if it was met for both endpoints in both analysis populations. Safety was assessed in all participants who received a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, 06473203, and EudraCT, 2011-001098-16.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2012, and Sept 12, 2017, 2197 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 920 were randomly assigned to the conventional continuation strategy (n=461) or the drug-free interval strategy (n=459; 668 [73%] male and 251 [27%] female; 885 [96%] White and 23 [3%] non-White). The median follow-up time was 58 months (IQR 46-73 months) in the ITT population and 58 months (46-72) in the per-protocol population. 488 patients continued on the trial after week 24. For overall survival, non-inferiority was demonstrated in the ITT population only (adjusted HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·83 to 1·12] in the ITT population; 0·94 [0·80 to 1·09] in the per-protocol population). Non-inferiority was demonstrated for QALYs in the ITT population (n=919) and per-protocol (n=871) population (marginal effect difference 0·06 [95% CI -0·11 to 0·23] for the ITT population; 0·04 [-0·14 to 0·21] for the per-protocol population). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (124 [26%] of 485 patients in the conventional continuation strategy group vs 127 [29%] of 431 patients in the drug-free interval strategy group); hepatotoxicity (55 [11%] vs 48 [11%]); and fatigue (39 [8%] vs 63 [15%]). 192 (21%) of 920 participants had a serious adverse reaction. 12 treatment-related deaths were reported (three patients in the conventional continuation strategy group; nine patients in the drug-free interval strategy group) due to vascular (n=3), cardiac (n=3), hepatobiliary (n=3), gastrointestinal (n=1), or nervous system (n=1) disorders, and from infections and infestations (n=1).

INTERPRETATION

Overall, non-inferiority between groups could not be concluded. However, there seemed to be no clinically meaningful reduction in life expectancy between the drug-free interval strategy and conventional continuation strategy groups and treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

The current status of immunotherapy in the treatment of primary advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the recent upward trends in incidence and mortality of endometrial cancer, there are still limited FDA-approved therapies for patients with primary advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer. This disparity presents the opportunity for further investigation of targeted therapies in this patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

One such area of adjuvant therapy is immunotherapy, which has shown improved progression-free survival in patients with several solid tumors, including endometrial, leading to the FDA approval of two immune checkpoint inhibitors. Additionally, with further study of precision medicine, the current adjuvant treatment paradigms that exist based on histopathologic subtype alone may be shifting towards a new genomic-based approach.

SUMMARY

This article is a snapshot of the origins of immunotherapy use in this patient population as well as a guide to its future use. The author's hope with this article is to describe the patient population as well as the history of the integration of immunotherapy use into the adjuvant treatment of endometrial cancer leading up to FDA approval of Pembrolizumab and Dostarlimab. This article also consolidates the current literature as well as ongoing clinical trials that will hopefully lead to FDA approval of more immunotherapeutic agents in the near future.

Dose Intensity in Real-World Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Taking Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that target the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) are oral therapies used to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). VEGFR TKI treatment is often complicated by dose-limiting adverse events (AE). We sought to describe dose intensity and clinical outcomes in a real-world cohort of patients treated with VEGFR TKIs to better characterize dosing patterns and toxicity management compared with previously reported clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of sequential patients with mRCC treated with VEGFR TKIs at 1 academic medical center from 2014 to 2021.

RESULTS

139 patients (75% male, 75% white, median age 63 years) were treated with 185 VEGFR TKIs in our real-world cohort. Per International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium criteria, 24% had good risk, 54% intermediate risk, and 22% poor risk mRCC. With their first VEGFR TKI, median relative dose intensity (RDI) was 79%. 52% of patients required a dose reduction, 11% discontinued treatment due to AEs, 15% visited the ED, and 13% were hospitalized for treatment-related adverse events. Cabozantinib had the highest rate of dose reductions (72%) but a low rate of discontinuation (7%). Real-world patients consistently had lower RDI than reported clinical trials with more frequent dose reductions, fewer drug discontinuations, shorter progression-free survival, and shorter overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Real-world patients were less able to tolerate VEGFR TKIs compared to patients treated on clinical trials. Low real-world RDI, high dose reductions, and low overall discontinuation rates can inform patient counseling prior to treatment initiation and during therapy.

Outcomes With Combination Pembrolizumab and Axitinib in Second and Further Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Combination immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-R-TKI), including pembrolizumab/axitinib, are approved for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pembrolizumab/axitinib is associated with superior progression free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival over sunitinib. However, to date, the activity and safety of pembrolizumab/axitinib in later lines of therapy has not been reported.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data of consecutive patients receiving pembrolizumab/axitinib in the second-line or beyond for mRCC at Yale-New Haven Hospital were retrospectively collected. Best objective response was assessed using RECIST 1.1 criteria. Kaplan-Meier function was used to analyze survival.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients were included. Median age was 64, 92.1% had clear cell mRCC, 18.4% had sarcomatoid dedifferentiation; 94.7% had prior ICI and 39.5% had prior VEGF-R-TKI. Pembrolizumab/axitinib was administered as second-line therapy in 21 (55.5%) patients, third-line in 5 (13.2%) and beyond in 12 (30.2%). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86.8% of patients. Grade 3-4 AEs attributed to pembrolizumab and axitinib were seen in 18.4% and 6.4% of patients, respectively. No grade 5 AEs occurred. At a median follow up of 17.1 months, median PFS was 9.7 months (95% CI, 4.1-15.3). Amongst 36 response evaluable patients, the ORR was 25.0% (all partial) and disease control rate (including stable disease for at least 6 months) was 66.6%. The most frequent treatment sequence was first-line nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by second-line pembrolizumab/axitinib (n = 17, 44.7%); among this cohort, median PFS with pembrolizumab/axitinib was 11.1 (95% CI, 8.4-13.7) months, with an ORR of 31.4%.

CONCLUSION

Combination pembrolizumab/axitinib among previously treated mRCC patients has activity, with AE rates comparable to those reported in the first line. Prospective studies evaluating ICI-VEGF-R-TKI combinations beyond first-line are warranted to identify the most beneficial treatment sequencing in mRCC.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma: Japanese patients from the CLEAR study

BACKGROUND

The phase 3 CLEAR study demonstrated statistically significantly improved efficacy with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib, including progression-free survival and overall survival, in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. This subset analysis investigated efficacy and safety in Japanese patients randomized to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or sunitinib in the CLEAR study.

METHODS

Progression-free survival, overall survival, tumor response, and safety were assessed in Japanese patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma randomized to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 42) or sunitinib (n = 31). Efficacy outcomes were analyzed by independent imaging review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.

RESULTS

Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 22.1 vs. 10.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20-0.74). Median overall survival was not estimable in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm and 30.6 months in the sunitinib arm (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.39-3.66). Overall survival adjusted for the imbalance of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic risk group favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.18-2.39). Objective response rate (69.0% vs. 45.2%; odds ratio, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.03-7.10) was higher and median duration of response (20.3 vs. 9.1 months) was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95.2% versus 87.1% of patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib arms.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a potential first-line treatment for Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination therapy for adult patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

: The treatment landscape of metastatic RCC has significantly evolved in recent years with the advent and approval of multiple combinations of anti-angiogenic agents with immune checkpoint inhibitors, of which the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is the most recent to be incorporated into clinical practice.

AREAS COVERED

Herein, we provide an overview of the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in metastatic RCC, including the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety profile.

EXPERT OPINION

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab has demonstrated substantial efficacy in patients with metastatic RCC in the first-line and refractory treatment setting with the highest reported results of radiological responses, complete responses, and progression free survival compared to all other RCC treatments. However, the field is currently still limited with the limited availability of biomarkers to inform on treatment selection and the lack of head-to-head studies across the effective RCC treatments. Ongoing and future studies are eagerly anticipated to uncover multiple unmet needs in RCC.