Randomized Phase IIIB Trial of Temsirolimus and Bevacizumab Versus Interferon and Bevacizumab in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from Intoract

First-line therapy for adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.

Sequencing systemic therapies for metastatic kidney cancer

Defining the appropriate sequencing of therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has become increasingly complex in recent years given the approval of multiple targeted therapies. These targeted therapies fall into 2 broad mechanistic categories: (1) inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and (2) vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-directed agents. In the current manuscript, data from relevant trials are reviewed to provide a context in which to use these agents across the first- and second-line setting. Strategies to incorporate promising agents currently in late stage development for mRCC are also described.

OPINION STATEMENT

Currently, there is no consensus as to the optimal sequence of therapies for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). While interleukin-2 (IL-2) and temsirolimus are potential considerations for selected patients in the first-line setting, the majority of patients in this setting are likely candidates for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-directed therapies. Specifically, these therapies include sunitinib, pazopanib, and bevacizumab/interferon-α. Using the comparative data discussed herein, the relative merits of each should be discussed. In the second-line setting (following VEGF-directed therapy), axitinib, and everolimus are supported by phase III data. There is no data directly comparing the 2 agents-however, studies reviewed in the current manuscript (comparing VEGF- and mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR]-directed approaches in the second-line setting) can potentially be used to inform clinical decision making.

RNA-seq reveals aurora kinase-driven mTOR pathway activation in patients with sarcomatoid metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Sarcomatoid metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is associated with a poor prognosis, and the biology of the disease has been inadequately characterized. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) was performed on adjacent benign, clear cell, and sarcomatoid components from clinical specimens with sarcomatoid mRCC. M phase and cell-cycle pathways were enriched in sarcomatoid versus adjacent clear cell components, suggesting greater cell proliferation. The expression of aurora kinase A (AURKA) was increased as part of these pathways, and its increased expression was validated by quantitative PCR (qPCR). Immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis revealed that AURKA levels were increased in sarcomatoid tissue compared with their benign or clear cell parts. The increase in AURKA correlated with increased mTOR pathway activity, as evidenced by increased expression of phosphorylated mTOR (S2448) and ribosomal protein S6K (T389). When AURKA was stably expressed in a RCC cell line (Renca), it resulted in increased expression and activity of mTOR, suggesting that overexpression of AURKA can activate the mTOR pathway. These results warrant the analysis of a larger clinical cohort and suggest that targeting AURKA and/or mTOR in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC should be explored.

IMPLICATIONS

Comparative RNA-seq of adjacent sarcomatoid and clear cell histology of RCC indicates a proliferative phenotype and increased AURKA-dependent activation of mTOR signaling in sarcomatoid RCC, which could be targeted by available agents.

Use of "Real-World" data to describe adverse events during the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in routine clinical practice

Insights into the experience of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients are needed to optimize patient care. A retrospective, multicenter registry of mRCC patients treated at academic (Duke) and community (ACORN) practices was developed to fill this need. Treatment data were collected on 466 patients who received first-line therapy from 2007 to 2011. Clinically significant adverse events (AEs) were abstracted from medical records and compared to clinical trials. Two hundred and seventy patients received first-line therapy with sunitinib, 60 temsirolimus, 53 sorafenib, 25 pazopanib, and 58 "other." A total of 85.8 % of all patients experienced at least one AE: fatigue (56.7 %), vomiting (40.1 %), diarrhea (33.7 %), asthenia (32.8 %), and mucosal inflammation (20.8 %). When comparisons were made between patients >65 versus <65 years old, rates of AEs were higher in the younger group. Dosing approaches and timing of AEs during therapy were varied. These data shine light on the patient experience in routine practice versus structured clinical trials. Real-world AE frequency and severity differ from pivotal trials demonstrating the need to monitor patients closely and manage their AEs to optimize outcomes. As the number of treatment options with similar effectiveness grows, it is imperative to understand the real-world patient experience.

Recommendations from the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group for the treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma

Clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common kidney cancer. New treatment options of localized RCC recently incorporated include laparoscopic surgery, nephron-sparing surgery, ablative techniques and active surveillance. But 50 % of patients may develop disease recurrence attributable to subclinical metastases. In these cases, and considering the low benefits of chemotherapy, new targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors have been developed as first- and second-line treatment. Both sunitinib and pazopanib are TKIs that constitute the first-line treatment option in patients with metastatic RCC. As second-line treatment, sequential therapy with a second TKI or a mTOR inhibitor is recommended. This review has collected together a series of recommendations issued by the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group with the aim of facilitating the treatment of these patients. Each recommendation is accompanied by the level of evidence and grade of recommendation on the basis of the available data.

Recent developments in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) management has been imbued with new interest, in large part due to the recent success of new treatment options for advanced and metastatic disease. This has also been accompanied by less generally well known advances in the understanding of the molecular characterizations of subtypes of RCC with potential to lead to new therapeutic options. Additionally, the urologic oncology community is focusing on nephron-sparing surgical approaches with limited surgery if possible, and in conjunction with interventional radiologists, on ablative procedures for incidentally determined small renal masses. This report reviews some of the new biologic findings of adenocarcinoma of the kidney, and reviews the new therapeutics which continue to change the landscape for treatment of RCC.

A phase II study of bevacizumab and everolimus as treatment for refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Agents that inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) prolong progression-free survival (PFS), but durable complete responses are rare. Combinations of these cytostatic therapies have great potential to improve efficacy and to escape tumoral resistance mechanisms, but supra-additive toxicity is a valid concern. We investigated whether horizontal blockade with the combination of bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody to VEGF-A, and of everolimus, an oral mTOR inhibitor, improved PFS in patients with clear cell mRCC who had received prior VEGF blockade.

METHODS

In this phase II investigator-initiated study, 10 of 30 planned patients were enrolled. Bevacizumab 10 mg/kg was administered intravenously every 14 days. Everolimus was orally dosed at 10 mg daily. The patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS.

RESULTS

The median age was 55 years. The majority of patients were white men with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (80%) and intermediate risk disease by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center criteria (70%). All the patients had received 1 prior VEGF inhibitor. The median PFS in the 10 evaluable patients was 5.1 months, which was less than the expected historical control of bevacizumab monotherapy at 6 months. The median overall survival was 21 months. The best response was a partial response in 1 patient and stable disease in 9. Forty percent of the patients were discontinued from the study due to toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, the combination of bevacizumab and everolimus was toxic. The efficacy achieved did not support its combined use over sequential administration. Ongoing randomized studies will definitively evaluate the combination's efficacy and tolerability.

Sequential therapy with targeted agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: beyond second-line and overcoming drug resistance

Renal cell carcinoma comprises 2-3% of all adult malignancies and its incidence is increasing. Overall survival of patients with advanced disease has increased over the last decade due to the development of many effective targeted agents. Unfortunately, most patients inevitably develop resistance to these agents. While our understanding of the underlying resistance mechanisms has improved, there remain multiple challenges in order to overcome resistance to targeted agents. Sequential and combination therapy with a variety of novel drugs has been evaluated to maintain ongoing clinical benefit and potentially overcome drug resistance. Retrospective data suggest that further anti-angiogenic therapy may be beneficial in advanced renal cell carcinoma after prior progression on two targeted agents with a similar or different mechanism of action. However, further randomised data are needed to better define the role of these agents beyond second-line therapy in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma.