Multicenter phase II study of sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Pattern of care and treatment outcomes of metastatic non-clear cell kidney cancer: a single centre experience from India

Background

Non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) refers to a rare diverse heterogeneous group of tumours; usually treated with immune check point inhibitors and or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Prospective large-scale data from Asian countries is limited.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients with metastatic nccRCC treated at Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata, India, from 2012 to 2022. Demographic profiles, histologic subtypes, treatment details, response to therapy (by response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST v1.1)) and survival status were captured from electronic medical records (EMRs) of hospitals up till May 2023. Kaplan Meier methods were estimated to assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 89 consecutive patients were screened for this study, 24 were excluded due to inadequate data in EMR. 65 patients were included in the final analysis, with a median age at diagnosis of 59 years (range 20-84) of which 81% were male. Histologic subtypes comprised of 43% papillary, 31% clear cell with mixed histology, 3% sarcomatoid and 23% others including chromophobe, mucinous-tubular, spindle cell, oncocytic, medullary, poorly differentiated and rhabdoid). The most common site of metastasis was the lung 62% (n = 40) followed by non-regional nodes 32%, bone 26% and liver 14%. 15% patients presented with haematuria and 62% underwent nephrectomy prior to systemic therapy. The majority received pazopanib 46% (n = 30), chemotherapy 20% (n = 13) including bevacizumab plus erlotinib, sunitinib 15% (n = 10) or cabozantinib 14% (n = 9). Only 3(5%) patients received nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination. Response to treatment showed complete response in 1.5%, partial response in 20%, stable disease in 51% and progressive disease in 23% as per RECIST v1.1. 17 patients required dose reduction and interruption due to adverse effects and 33% (n = 22) received second-line therapy with nivolumab 18% (n = 4), axitinib and everolimus among others. After a median follow up of 44 months, the median PFS was 13 months (95%CI 7.2-18.9) and the median OS was 17 months (95%CI 12.1-22.1) for the entire cohort.

Conclusion

The overall response and survival for metastatic nccRCC was relatively better in comparison with published data, despite the limited number of patients treated with ICIs due to cost and access barriers.

Advances in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma management: From heterogeneous biology to treatment options

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) makes up nearly one quarter of all RCC subtypes, commonly impacts younger patients, and is often metastatic at presentation. Compared to clear-cell RCC (ccRCC), nccRCC typically has a worse prognosis in the metastatic setting, with overall survival durations that are ~10 months shorter. The nccRCC consists of a wide range of different histological subtypes, the majority of which are composed of papillary, chromophobe, renal medullary carcinoma, translocation RCC, collecting duct carcinoma and unclassified RCC. Most clinical trials have either excluded or only included small numbers of patients with nccRCC; owing to the lack of prospective studies focusing on this population, data on response rates and survival outcomes are lacking. NccRCC treatment is a nascent field with various therapeutic modalities and combinations under investigation, often based on data extrapolated from therapeutic studies in ccRCC. We herein review the use and outcomes of cytotoxic chemotherapy, various combination modalities of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, and targeted agents. We discuss active ongoing clinical trials for patients with nccRCC and future directions in the treatment of this rare disease. Historically, treatment for nccRCC has been adopted from the standard of care for patients with ccRCC, although these treatments are less effective in the nccRCC population. As we begin to understand the underlying biology of these tumors, clinical trials have been able to slowly accrue and include more patients with various subtypes of nccRCC. There remains much room for improvement in this area of need, but there is hope on the horizon.

The incidence, pathogenesis, and management of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common type of kidney cancer and is divided into two distinct subtypes, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). Although many treatments exist for RCC, these are largely based on clinical trials performed in ccRCC and there are limited studies on the management of nccRCC. Non-clear cell RCC consists of multiple histological subtypes: papillary, chromophobe, translocation, medullary, collecting duct, unclassified, and other rare histologies. Due to variations in pathogenesis and therapeutic response, therapy should be tailored to specific variant histologies. For patients with localized nccRCC, surgical resection remains the gold standard. In the metastatic setting, the standard of care has yet to be clearly defined, and most guidelines recommend clinical trial participation. General therapeutic options include immunotherapy, either as monotherapy or in combination, targeted therapies such as vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and MET inhibitors, and chemotherapy in certain subtypes. Here we present a review of the incidence and pathogenesis of the various subtypes, as well as available clinical data to support therapeutic recommendations for these subtypes. We also highlight currently available clinical trials in nccRCC and future directions in investigating novel treatment modalities tailored to patients with variant histology.

ALK-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (ALK-RCC): Evaluation of histomorphological and immunohistochemical features by analysis of 276 renal cell carcinoma cases in Turkey

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement-associated renal cell carcinoma (ALK-RCC) is characterized by ALK fusion at chromosome 2p23. It has recently been included as a recognized entity with the 5th edition of the WHO classification urinary and male genital tumor. However, our knowledge about ALK-RCC is limited due to the small number of reported cases. In our study, we aimed to contribute the histomorphological and immunohistochemical features of ALK-rearranged renal cell carcinoma cases. We reviewed 276 cases diagnosed as RCC in order to detect ALKRCCs.We used immunohistochemistry to screen ALK rearrangement and then confirmed the ALK rearrangement by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) method. ALK was immunohistochemically positive in 8 of 276 cases. ALK rearrangement was detected by FISH in 3 of 8 cases. These cases were previously diagnosed as clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CRCC), papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC), and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC). Their histomorphological findings were diverse, and all three cases exhibited different immunohistochemical findings. Survival of these patients ranged between 6 and 24 months. ALK immunohistochemical findings were also different in each case as perinuclear, weak cytoplasmic, and membranous.ALK RCCs appear to be very rare tumors with heterogeneous histomorphological and immunohistochemical features. Although immunohistochemistry may be useful to detect ALK positivity, genetic evaluation is required to confirm the diagnosis. With identifying ALK-RCCs, ALK inhibitors, which are currently used in the treatment of lung adenocarcinomas, can be used as a targeted therapy option in ALK-RCCs.

An Overview of Systemic Targeted Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma, with a Focus on Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma and Brain Metastases

The most commonly diagnosed malignancy of the urinary system is represented by renal cell carcinoma. Various subvariants of RCC were described, with a clear-cell type prevailing in about 85% of all RCC tumors. Patients with metastases from renal cell carcinoma did not have many effective therapies until the end of the 1980s, as long as hormonal therapy and chemotherapy were the only options available. The outcomes were unsatisfactory due to the poor effectiveness of the available therapeutic options, but then interferon-alpha and interleukin-2 showed treatment effectiveness, providing benefits but only for less than half of the patients. However, it was not until 2004 that targeted therapies emerged, prolonging the survival rate. Currently, new technologies and strategies are being developed to improve the actual efficacy of available treatments and their prognostic aspects. This article summarizes the mechanisms of action, importance, benefits, adverse events of special interest, and efficacy of immunotherapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma, with a focus on brain metastases.

Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Review of Prospective Clinical Trials

OPINION STATEMENT

PRCC is a unique histologic entity compared to other forms of renal cell carcinoma, harboring distinct molecular drivers. The WHO 2022 classification is further emphasizing the molecular biology by making molecular classifications of PRCC subclassifications and discontinuing the morphologic type 1 and type 2 classification system. We agree with this functional classification system and encourage all future clinical trials to only include patients with similar diagnosis instead of conducting basket trials (including all nccRCC together) which limits the scientific value of those conclusions. Based on recent disease-specific clinical trial (S1500, PAPMET), the current standard of care for patients with treatment naïve PRCC is cabozantinib. Prospective clinical trials clearly establish that immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has meaningful activity in PRCC. The data to date include only single-arm clinical trials of combination immune therapy. Despite the positive and encouraging results, we need validation through randomized studies because of the overestimation of effect size seen in single-arm trials. These randomized trials are currently underway and enrolling. We strongly encourage all physicians to support these studies and enroll patients with PRCC to these trials in order to continue improving the standard of care.

An Update on the Treatment of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma

Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the second-most common subtype of kidney cancer following clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), representing 15% of kidney cancers. Despite advances in therapy, including combination strategies with targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors, progress has lagged behind that of ccRCC. This is in part due to the heterogenous nature of the various subtypes of pRCC. More recently, investigators have turned efforts towards histology and biology-based trials. In this review, we outline some of the distinct biological characteristics of pRCC and discuss the most impactful clinical trials to date. Finally, we look ahead to several highly anticipated ongoing trials in pRCC.

Start of a New Era: Management of Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma in 2022

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Historically, kidney cancer was diagnosed as either clear cell renal carcinoma (ccRCC) or non-clear cell renal carcinoma (nccRCC). With further research into the pathophysiology of nccRCC, multiple distinct subtypes have emerged creating distinct diagnosis, such as papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC), chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (crRCC), or unclassified carcinoma (cRCC). Many other kidney cancer subtypes are now included in the WHO classification system.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prognosis for each of the more frequently diagnosed types is discussed here along with treatment recommendations. The available clinical trial results and salient retrospective studies of each subtype are reviewed here to guide clinicians on the optimal treatment selection for patients with these rare histologic types or RCC. Many nccRCC types are now recognized and each has unique molecular drivers which are different than ccRCC. The optimal treatment strategy is different for each subtype. The prognosis also differs based on the histology.

Hypersensitivity to ferroptosis in chromophobe RCC is mediated by a glutathione metabolic dependency and cystine import via solute carrier family 7 member 11

Chromophobe (Ch) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) arises from the intercalated cell in the distal nephron. There are no proven treatments for metastatic ChRCC. A distinguishing characteristic of ChRCC is strikingly high levels of reduced (GSH) and oxidized (GSSG) glutathione. Here, we demonstrate that ChRCC-derived cells exhibit higher sensitivity to ferroptotic inducers compared with clear-cell RCC. ChRCC-derived cells are critically dependent on cystine via the cystine/glutamate antiporter xCT to maintain high levels of glutathione, making them sensitive to inhibitors of cystine uptake and cyst(e)inase. Gamma-glutamyl transferase 1 (GGT1), a key enzyme in glutathione homeostasis, is markedly suppressed in ChRCC relative to normal kidney. Importantly, GGT1 overexpression inhibits the proliferation of ChRCC cells in vitro and in vivo, suppresses cystine uptake, and decreases levels of GSH and GSSG. Collectively, these data identify ferroptosis as a metabolic vulnerability in ChRCC, providing a potential avenue for targeted therapy for these distinctive tumors.

Systematic Review of Treatment of Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background: Metastatic and unresectable non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma comprises more than a quarter of kidney cancers but does not have standardized treatment. Non-clear renal carcinoma consists of a variety of diverse histologic subtypes, including papillary, chromophobe, collecting duct, translocation, and medullary histologies, many of which carry a poor prognosis. Many prospective clinical trials exclude these kidney cancers, and for most clinical trials of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, only a small number of patients are enrolled. Objective: To perform a systematic review of recently published and currently enrolling prospective clinical trials for advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Methods: A systematic search of Pubmed and MEDLINE (Ovid) was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines to identify recent prospective clinical trials in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. To ensure a thorough search, terms not only included non-clear cell renal carcinoma but also molecular subtypes. A review of currently enrolling clinical trials was conducted on Clinicaltrials.gov and the EU Clinical Trials Register as well. Results: A total of 33 prospective clinical trials with published results and 10 currently enrolling clinicals trials were identified. About half (48.5%) of these studies were reported in 2020 or 2021, and 36.4% were in the first-line setting. Treatments investigated in these trials included mTOR inhibitors, VEGF- and MET-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and combinatorial strategies. Outcomes from these data revealed a wide range of response rate and progression free survival, favoring TKIs and immune checkpoint inhibitors -based combination regimens. Conclusions: Novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies have changed the landscape of treatment for advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Combination regimens may provide even further clinical benefit and warrant further investigation in larger, randomized prospective clinical trials.

Case Report: TFE3 Positive Xp11.2 Translocation Renal Cell Carcinoma (TRCC) – A Case Study and Review of the Literature

Microphthalmia-associated transcription factor renal cell cancer, also known as translocation renal cell cancer, belongs to the group of extremely rare non-clear-cell kidney neoplasms. Their incidence is lower in adulthood than in childhood. The only known risk factor for the development of this tumor is prior chemotherapy. In the operable stage of the disease, the prognosis depends on the status of regional lymph nodes. Interestingly lymph node positivity worsens the prognosis only in the adult patient population. Radical surgical excision is the best therapy in the early stage. The optimal treatment strategy for locally advanced and metastatic disease has not been established, given the lack of evidence in such a rare disease. We present the case of a patient with an aggressive course of this neoplasm treated with temsirolimus, who achieved 10-month control of this neoplasm accompanied by a discussion on other therapeutic possibilities.

A challenging frontier - the genomics and therapeutics of nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As molecular profiling of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) continues to elucidate novel targets for nonclear cell histologies, understanding the landscape of these targets is of utmost importance. In this review, we highlight the genomic landscape of nonclear cell RCC and its implications for current and future systemic therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several genomic studies have described the mutational burden among nonclear cell histologies. These studies have highlighted the importance of MET in papillary RCC and led to several clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of MET inhibitors for papillary RCC. The success of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab and nivolumab, in clear cell RCC has led to ongoing trials evaluating these novel therapeutics in nonclear cell RCC.

SUMMARY

Genomic profiling has allowed for the evaluation of novel targets for nonclear cell RCC. This evolving therapeutic landscape is being explored in promising, ongoing trials that have the potential for changing how nonclear cell RCC is managed.

Non-clear cell renal carcinomas: Review of new molecular insights and recent clinical data

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (nccRCC) represent a highly heterogeneous group of kidney tumors, consisting of the following subtypes: papillary carcinomas, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, so-called unclassified carcinomas or aggressive uncommon carcinomas such as Bellini carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with ALK rearrangement or fumarate hydratase-deficient RCC. Although non-clear cell cancers account for only 15 to 30% of renal tumors, they are often misclassified and accurate diagnosis continues to be an issue in clinical practice. Current therapeutic strategy of metastatic nccRCC is based primarily on guidelines established for clear cell tumors, the most common subtype, however this approach remains poorly defined. To date, published clinical trials for all histological nccRCC subtypes have been collectively characterized into one group, in contrast to clear cell RCC, and given the small numbers of cases, the interpretation of study results continues to be challenging. This review summarizes the available literature for each nccRCC subtype and highlights the lack of supportive evidence from prospective clinical trials and retrospective studies. Future trials should evaluate treatment approaches which focus on a specific histological subtype and progress in treating nccRCC will be contingent on understanding the unique biology of their individual histologies.

Long-term disease control of metastatic type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma using local treatment and molecular targeted therapy: A case report

A 46-year-old man underwent right partial nephrectomy for type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) in 2011. Lung metastasis and lymph node (LN) metastases around the inferior vena cave appeared in 2012. A right radical nephrectomy and extensive LN dissection was performed and the resection of lung metastasis was performed one month after the nephrectomy. Mediastinal LN metastases occurred in 2013, and resection of the affected LNs was performed. Sunitinib and zoledronic acid was started in 2014 because mediastinal LN swelling and multiple bone metastases appeared. Sunitinib treatment was stopped soon after due to adverse events and axitinib treatment was started. Axitinib was effective and the patient had stable disease for 30 months. Adverse events were successfully controlled by dose reduction and periodic drug withdrawal schedules (for example, 5 days on, 2 days off). Axitinib was further continued for 19 months as the metastatic lesions had progressed slowly. Temsirolimus treatment was started in 2019, but it was stopped after three cycles due to interstitial pneumonia. The patient died 80 months after the initial recurrence. Using multidisciplinary treatment, durable disease control was achieved in a patient with metastatic type 2 PRCC.

Treatment outcomes of metastatic nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma: A single institution retrospective analysis

Introduction:

Nonclear cell (NCC) metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a biologically heterogeneous entity. We report the outcomes of NCC mRCC treated with first-line vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors or mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors at our institute. This is first such report from India.

Methods:

This is a retrospective analysis of the 40 consecutive patients of NCC mRCC treated between January 2013 and June 2015 in routine clinical practice at our institute. The primary endpoint analyzed was overall survival (OS) with respect to the type of first-line treatment and tumor histology.

Results:

The most common histological subtype was papillary in 25 patients (62.5%) followed by sarcomatoid in six (15%), chromophobe in 5 (12.5%), translocation-associated in one patient, and other nonspecified in three patients. First-line treatment was sorafenib in 14 (35%), sunitinib in 9 (22.5%), pazopanib in 8 (20%), everolimus in seven (17.5%), and best-supportive care (BSC) in two (5%) patients. Partial response, stable disease, and progression was observed in six (15%), 13 (32.5%), and nine (22.5%) cases, respectively, as the best response to first-line treatment. The median OS was 11.7 months and median event-free survival was 6.1 months in the whole cohort. The median OS in months for different first-line treatments were as follows: sorafenib (16.2), sunitinib (11.7), pazopanib (not reached, mean-23.9 ± 6.0), everolimus (4.1) and BSC (0.6) and for different histological subtypes were as follows: papillary (9.8), chromophobe (not reached, mean-30.3 ± 8.4), sarcomatoid (4.1), and others (7.9).

Conclusions:

Chromophobe histology has a better outcome compared to other histological subtypes, and anti-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors are preferable first-line agents compared to mTOR inhibitors.

Difficulty in differential diagnosis for renal cancer with microscopic papillary architecture: overlapped pathological features among papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC), mutinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma, and unclassified RCC. Lessons from a Japanese multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

In our multicenter study evaluating metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC), 29% of tumors diagnosed as PRCC in collaborative institutes were finally diagnosed as other RCCs under central review. In those tumors, mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma (MTSCC) was the leading histology, followed by unclassified RCC (ucRCC). We focused on those patients with MTSCC or ucRCC.

METHODS

We reviewed the processes for the pathological diagnoses of nine tumors and reviewed their clinical features.

RESULTS

All of the MTSCCs and ucRCCs were positive for AMACR, which is frequently positive in PRCC. Mucin was demonstrated in 80% of the MTSCCs, and its presence is important for their diagnoses. One MTSCC was diagnosed as a mucin-poor variant. The presence of spindle cells with low-grade nuclei was suggestive of MTSCC, but the diagnosis of high-grade MTSCC was difficult. Four tumors were diagnosed as ucRCC by histological and immunohistochemical findings. Three of the four tumors were suspicious of ucRCC in the initial review due to atypical findings as PRCC. Sunitinib and interferon-α were effective for one MTSCC patient who survived for >5 years. Two MTSCC patients who were Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center poor risk had unfavorable prognoses. One patient with mucin-poor MTSCC had an indolent clinical course. Two of four ucRCC patients showed durable stable disease with targeted agents (TAs) and survived >3 years.

CONCLUSION

Some MTSCC metastases progressed very slowly and poor-risk tumors progressed rapidly. Systemic therapies including TAs showed some efficacies. Some patients who have metastatic ucRCC with microscopic papillary architecture can benefit from TAs.

Advanced Non-Clear Cell Kidney Cancer: In Search of Rational Treatment Approaches

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) accounts for approximately 25% of RCC diagnoses. Although broadly labeled as "nccRCC," they comprised a host of histologies that include papillary, chromophobe, unclassified, and others. Moreover, these histological variants are further subclassified on the basis of genomic profiling, thereby highlighting nccRCC to be anything but a homogenous cohort of RCC. The heterogeneity of nccRCC has proved challenging in developing therapeutics for this population. Although ccRCC therapeutic data have been commonly extrapolated for the treatment of nccRCC, the overall poor outcome of these patients highlights an unmet need. In an era of precision medicine, genomic analysis, and predictive biomarkers, novel approach to drug design and development is necessary to optimize treatment outcomes in nccRCC patients. Herein, we provide an overview of the nccRCC histologies, clinical trial data, and future opportunities for treatment options and development in nccRCC.

A Systematic Review of Systemic Treatment Options for Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

There have been a number of recent advances in the management of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). However, the majority of these studies excluded patients with non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC), and optimal management of nccRCC remains unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to evaluate systemic treatment options in locally advanced or metastatic nccRCC between 2000-2019. Randomized controlled trials, single-arm phase II-IV trials, and prospective analyses of medication access programs were included. The primary outcome measures were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

A total of 31 studies were included in the final analysis. There was the highest level of evidence to support first-line treatment of nccRCC with sunitinib. Additional single-arm trials support the use of other vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors with axitinib and pazopanib, as well as mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition with temsirolimus or everolimus +/- bevacizumab. Immune checkpoint inhibition has an emerging role in nccRCC, but optimal sequencing of available options is not clear. Prospective data to support the use of newer immunotherapy combinations are lacking. Treatment for collecting duct carcinoma remains platinum-based chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of randomized trials in nccRCC is limited, and most studies include outcomes for nccRCC as a group, making conclusions about efficacy by subtype difficult. This systematic review supports consensus guidelines recommending sunitinib or clinical trial enrollment as preferred first-line treatment options for nccRCC, but also suggests a more nuanced approach to management and new options for therapy such as immune checkpoint inhibition.

Systemic therapy for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) subtype accounts for almost 5% of total RCC cases. It carries the best prognosis among the rest of RCC types. However, patients with metastatic chRCC disease have worse prognosis than patients with advanced clear cell RCC. Furthermore, available data regarding systemic therapy for chRCC patients are scarce and confusing.

AIM

The aim of this systematic review is to search for and critically appraise studies that investigate the results of systemic therapies in patients diagnosed with metastatic chRCC disease.

METHODS

Search strategy included PUBMED, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov databases, and abstracts of major conferences with a focus on urologic oncology (till March 2019). Studies investigating patients that were treated with systemic therapy for advanced chRCC disease were included. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival and objective response rate. Secondary outcome was overall survival. Screening of available studies was carried out by 2 groups of reviewers, as well as the quality assessment of the included studies.

RESULTS

The systematic search yielded 369 studies, of which 15 studies (2 randomized control trials and 13 cohort studies), involving 183 patients, met the eligibility criteria. The 2 randomized control trials that directly compared sunitinib vs. everolimus, suggested an advantage for sunitinib without being statistically significant. Furthermore, sunitinib seems to be superior than sorafenib at least in terms of objective response rate. Regarding mTOR inhibitors, they may have a role in a specific subset of chRCC patients, that needs to be further explored. Finally, as far as immunotherapy is concerned, available data suggest that chRCC seems to be resistant to recent immune check point inhibitors, since just a few tumor responses were observed with the administered immunotherapy regiments.

CONCLUSION

The optimum therapy for metastatic chRCC is still missing, as results from ongoing trials are awaited. More studies, of high quality and adequate sample size, that will be based on the specific biology of chRCC, have to be carried out in order to identify the best treatment.

Comprehensive Genomic Analysis of Metastatic Non-Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma to Identify Therapeutic Targets

PURPOSE

Non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) encompasses approximately 20% of renal cell carcinomas and includes subtypes that vary in clinical and molecular biology. Compared with clear cell renal cell carcinoma, nccRCC demonstrates limited sensitivity to conventional vascular endothelial growth factor- and mammalian target of rapamycin-directed agents, indicating a need for better therapies. Characterizing the genomic landscape of metastatic nccRCC variants may help define novel therapeutic strategies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed tumor tissue from patients with metastatic nccRCC who consented to genomic analysis of their tumor and germline DNA. A hybridization capture-based assay was used to identify single nucleotide variants and small insertions and deletions across more than 340 cancer-associated genes with germline comparison. Clinical actionability of somatic mutations was assessed using OncoKB levels of evidence. Microsatellite instability (MSI) in the tumor was investigated.

RESULTS

Of 116 patients included in the analysis, 57 (49%) presented with de novo metastatic disease, and 59 (51%) presented with localized disease that later metastasized. Subtype classifications included unclassified (n = 41; 35%), papillary (n = 26; 22%), chromophobe (n = 17; 15%), translocation associated (n = 13; 11%), and other (n = 19; 16%). Of all tumors, 15 (13%) had putative driver somatic alterations amenable to targeted therapies, including alterations in MET, TSC1/2, and an ALK translocation. Of 45 patients who had germline testing, 11 (24%) harbored mutations, seven of which could potentially guide therapy. Of 115 available tumors for analysis, two (1.7%) had high and six (5%) had intermediate MSI status.

CONCLUSION

The mutation profiles of metastatic nccRCC vary by subtype. Comprehensive analysis of somatic mutations, germline mutations, and MSI, interpreted via an annotated precision oncology knowledge base, identified potentially targetable alterations in 22% of patients, which merits additional investigation.

Successful treatment with sorafenib for sunitinib-refractory metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma: Potential impact of Raf overexpression on predicting the efficacy of sorafenib

Introduction

The prognosis of type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma is often poor. We herein report a case of papillary renal cell carcinoma with liver metastasis that was successfully treated with sorafenib as a second‐line therapy.

Case presentation

An 82‐year‐old man who had undergone radical nephrectomy 5 years previously experienced biopsy‐proven liver metastasis. He received sunitinib as a first‐line treatment; the dose was initially 12.5 mg/day and was escalated to 25 mg/day, but it was discontinued due to several adverse events. We then switched to sorafenib as a second‐line treatment, which resulted in a partial response (51% reduction in tumor size); the patient showed no recurrence 5 months after the initiation of sorafenib treatment. An immunohistochemical analysis revealed the overexpression of Raf in both the primary and metastatic tumors.

Conclusion

As sorafenib blocks Raf signaling, the expression of Raf may serve as a useful predictor of the efficacy of sorafenib.

A Multicenter Phase II Trial of Axitinib in Patients With Recurrent or Metastatic Non-clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Who Had Failed Prior Treatment With Temsirolimus

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment option for non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) is not established. We conducted a multicenter phase II trial of axitinib for patients with advanced nccRCC who had failed prior treatment with temsirolimus.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with histologically confirmed metastatic or recurrent nccRCC received 5 mg axitinib twice daily. Prior use of vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitors was not allowed. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, overall survival, and safety.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included between January 2013 and December 2016. The median age was 59 years (range, 22-84 years). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status were 0 (7.5%) and 1 (92.5%), and 82.5% of patients had undergone prior nephrectomy. Papillary type 2 (60.0%) was the most common histology, and patients belonged to favorable (12.5%), intermediate (72.5%), and poor (15.0%) risk groups according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk stratification. With a median follow-up duration of 14.7 months (95% confidence interval, [CI], 10.8-18.6 months), the median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.2-9.5 months). The ORR was 37.5%, and the disease control rate was 67.5%. The median overall survival was 12.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-17.7 months). Most adverse events were manageable, and no unexpected toxicities were found.

CONCLUSION

Axitinib showed promising efficacy in terms of ORR and PFS in recurrent or metastatic nccRCC when used after failure with temsirolimus.

Pazopanib for the Treatment of Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Single-Arm, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase II Study

PURPOSE

The optimal treatment strategy for patients with metastatic non-clear cell type renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) remains unclear. Although several inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor have recently shown efficacy against nccRCC, the clinical benefit of pazopanib in nccRCC has not been analyzed. We therefore designed a single-arm, open-label, phase II study to determine the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with nccRCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patientswith locally advanced or metastatic nccRCC, exceptfor collecting duct or sarcomatoid type, received 800 mg/day of pazopanib daily until progression of disease or intolerable toxicity. One cyclewas defined as 4weeks and tumorresponsewas evaluated every two cycles. The primary objective was overall response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

A total of 29 eligible patients were enrolled at nine centers in Korea from December 2012 and September 2014. The median age of the patients was 58 years (range, 27 to 76 years) and 21 patients (72%) were male. Regarding histology type, 19 patients had papillary, three had chromophobe, two had unclassified and five had unknown non-clear cell type. Of 28 evaluable patients, eight achieved a confirmed partial response with ORR of 28%. The median progression-free survival was 16.5 months (95% confidence interval, 10.9 to 22.1) and median overall survival was not reached. Sixteen patients (55%) experienced treatment-related toxicity of grade 3 or more, but most adverse events were overcome through dose reduction and delay.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective phase II study, pazopanib demonstrated promising activity and tolerable safety profile in patients with metastatic nccRCC.

Biomarker-Based Phase II Trial of Savolitinib in Patients With Advanced Papillary Renal Cell Cancer

Purpose

Patients with advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) have limited therapeutic options. PRCC may involve activation of the MET pathway, for example, through gene amplification or mutations. Savolitinib (AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib) is a highly selective MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We report results of a single-arm, multicenter, phase II study evaluating the safety and efficacy of savolitinib in patients with PRCC according to MET status.

Patients and Methods

Patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic PRCC were enrolled and received savolitinib 600 mg orally once daily. MET-driven PRCC was defined as any of the following: chromosome 7 copy gain, focal MET or HGF gene amplification, or MET kinase domain mutations. Efficacy was assessed according to MET status. Safety, toxicity, and patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes were assessed in all patients.

Results

Of 109 patients treated, PRCC was MET driven in 44 (40%) and MET independent in 46 (42%); MET status was unknown in 19 (17%). MET-driven PRCC was strongly associated with response; there were eight confirmed partial responders with MET-driven disease (18%), but none with MET-independent disease ( P = .002). Median progression-free survival for patients with MET-driven and MET-independent PRCC was 6.2 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 7.0 months) and 1.4 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.7 months), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.52; log-rank P < .001). The most frequent adverse events associated with savolitinib were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and peripheral edema.

Conclusion

These data show activity and tolerability of savolitinib in the subgroup of patients with MET-driven PRCC. Furthermore, molecular characterization of MET status was more predictive of response to savolitinib than a classification based on pathology. These findings justify investigating savolitinib in MET-driven PRCC.

Characterizing the outcomes of metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma

Outcomes of metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) patients are poorly characterized in the era of targeted therapy. A total of 5474 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) were retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes were compared between clear cell (ccRCC; n = 5008) and papillary patients (n = 466), and recorded type I and type II papillary patients (n = 30 and n = 165, respectively). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) favored ccRCC over pRCC. OS was 8 months longer in ccRCC patients and the hazard ratio of death was 0.71 for ccRCC patients. No differences in PFS or ORR were detected between type I and II PRCC in this limited dataset. The median OS for type I pRCC was 20.0 months while the median OS for type II was 12.6 months (P = 0.096). The IMDC prognostic model was able to stratify pRCC patients into favorable risk (OS = 34.1 months), intermediate risk (OS = 17.0 months), and poor-risk groups (OS = 6.0 months). pRCC patient outcomes were inferior to ccRCC, even after controlling for IMDC prognostic factors. The IMDC prognostic model was able to effectively stratify pRCC patients.

Comprehensive Analysis of Survival Outcomes in Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated in Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical data from patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) receiving targeted therapy are limited, and many clinical trials have excluded these patients from study entry. We sought to investigate the outcomes of patients with nccRCC treated in clinical trials in the modern era compared with the outcomes of patients with clear cell RCC (ccRCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with metastatic RCC who had received targeted therapy in Pfizer-sponsored phase II and III clinical trials from 2003 to 2013. Associations between the histologic type and treatment outcome (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS]) were assessed using the log-rank test on univariate analysis or the Wald χ² test from Cox regression on multivariable analysis, adjusted for baseline characteristics, including age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, body mass index, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk factors, previous nephrectomy, previous therapy, metastatic sites, angiotensin system inhibitor use, and statin use.

RESULTS

We identified 4527 patients with metastatic RCC: 4235 with ccRCC and 337 with nccRCC. Overall, the median OS was shorter for those with nccRCC than for those with ccRCC (15.7 vs. 20.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval 1.22-1.63; P < .001). When stratified by the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk group, the median OS was inferior for the intermediate- and poor-risk patients with nccRCC than for those with ccRCC. However, no differences were found in the favorable risk group for nccRCC versus ccRCC. The patients with nccRCC who had received vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy had shorter PFS compared with that of ccRCC patients (median, 6.1 vs. 8.5 months; HR, 1.49; P < .001) but similar PFS when treated with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (median, 4.3 vs. 4.4 months; HR, 0.92; P = .63).

CONCLUSION

Our findings have confirmed that patients with nccRCC are underrepresented in clinical trials and highlight the need for further prospective studies exploring current and novel agents for this patient population.

Genomic differences between black and white patients implicate a distinct immune response to papillary renal cell carcinoma

Significant disparities in survival, incidence and possibly response to current therapies exist between black and white patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Recent genomic evidence to account for these disparities has been reported for clear cell RCC. However, racial disparities at the genomic level for papillary RCC (pRCC) which is a genetically distinct and less responsive histologic subtype of RCC have not been reported. Using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data, the present study assessed gene-level expression, somatic mutation and pathway differences between 58 black and 58 white patients with pRCC propensity matched on age, gender and pathologic T stage. Distinct tumor biology with differential expression patterns were observed in black vs. white patients with pRCC. Specifically, significance analysis of microarrays was applied to TCGA gene expression data and identified 163 genes and 120 genes overexpressed in black and white patients, respectively (FDR q<0.05). Gene Set Enrichment Analysis identified 62 gene sets enriched (p<0.10) in blacks. Enrichment of immune immune system pathways were noted in black patients. These included the B cell receptor signaling pathway, the NOD-like receptor signaling pathway and genes involved in defensins. The VEGF pathway was also more significant in black patients. CRYBB2, a gene associated with the WNT pathway was overexpressed in Black patients. While our data requires validation, these findings suggest that race may have implications for distinct immune responses to cancer and that the use of immunotherapies, and VEGFR inhibitors to target these pathways may improve survival in black patients with advanced pRCC.

Sunitinib in kidney cancer: 10 years of experience and development

INTRODUCTION

Sunitinib is a multi-target, anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor and a key molecule in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Since it first demonstrated its efficacy ten years ago, overall survival of mRCC has more than doubled, in part due to sunitinib. In most recent years, progress has been made in the comprehension of its mechanism of action and resistance. Areas Covered: In this article, clinical trials involving sunitinib in kidney cancer have been reviewed, defining its different indications in metastatic and localized RCC. The rationale of sunitinib's efficacy, preclinical trials, past-clinical trials and ongoing clinical trials are summarized. Dose and scheme base are discussed, as the recommended dosage is frequently not well tolerated. Combination therapies appear to be toxic. Novel immunotherapies are changing the landscape of mRCC treatment and challenging sunitinib. Special attention has been paid towards cancer cell biology and immunity involved in treatment response. Expert Commentary: Sunitinib's place in the therapeutic arsenal is being redefined with the arrival of major challengers. Dosage and scheduling of sunitinib remains a major challenge.

First-Line Treatments for Poor-Prognosis Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Experts' Prescribing Practices and Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

No head-to-head clinical trials are available to help physicians in the decision-making process of first-line therapy in poor-prognosis metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The objectives of our study were to identify experts' prescribing practices and to review available clinical data in first-line therapies for poor-prognosis metastatic RCC (mRCC).

METHODS

Thirteen RCC experts were asked to fill in a self-administered questionnaire evaluating prescribing practices. A systematic review was performed in July 2015 in MEDLINE for clinical trials evaluating first-line strategy in poor-prognosis mRCC.

RESULTS

Ten out of 13 experts completed the questionnaire (76.9%). Sunitinib was the most frequently prescribed first-line therapy (8/10; 80%). The main reason for prescribing sunitinib most frequently was the evidence of effectiveness for the majority (5/8 experts). A total of 21 articles were found suitable. Only one phase III randomized controlled trial in which all patients had a poor prognosis was retrieved. Temsirolimus increases progression-free survival and overall survival compared to IFN-alpha. Increased PFS with sunitinib in poor-prognosis patients was shown in a subgroup analysis of the pivotal trial. An expanded-access trial confirmed this result.

DISCUSSION

Experts tend to prefer sunitinib as first-line therapy even in poor-prognosis mRCC. In light of the systematic review, no targeted therapy appears to be more effective than another. The upcoming challenge is to discover more effective new drugs since the overall survival of poor-prognosis mRCC still remains extremely limited.

Sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Sunitinib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets various receptors, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs). Sunitinib received approval in 2006 and became a standard treatment option in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) after a phase III trial showed superiority compared with interferon alpha (IFN-α). Sunitinib has also shown activity in second-line treatment in several trials. Most of the combination trials with sunitinib with various agents have led to considerable toxicity without improving efficacy. Sunitinib alone causes significant side effects and has a distinct profile with diarrhoea, hypertension, skin effects hypothyroidism, fatigue and nausea of special interest. The recommended dose of sunitinib in mRCC is 50 mg orally daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off treatment (4/2 schedule). An alternative 2 weeks on, 1 week off schedule (2/1 schedule) seems to be of similar efficacy and better tolerability and could be more widely used in the future. An intermittent treatment strategy with a stop in remission and re-induction after progression showed efficacy in smaller trials and is currently being evaluated in a phase III trial. Direct comparison of sunitinib with pazopanib in first-line treatment showed a similar efficacy for both TKIs with a distinct toxicity profile. Data from two phase II trials showed that sunitinib has also activity in non-clear cell cancer and is an option due to a lack of better alternatives. Currently, after immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown very promising results in the second-line treatment of RCC, they are being tested in a number of phase III trials in the first-line setting. The future will show the position of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of RCC in the era of the immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Current and future strategies in nonclear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Therapeutic options for patients with metastatic nonclear-cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC) are limited and display minimum benefit. Conducting clinical trials in these rare and heterogeneous diseases without identified key biological drivers is a challenge for drug development. A growing body of prospective dedicated clinical trials and large molecular characterization initiatives are raising new expectations in non-ccRCC.

RECENT FINDINGS

The first randomized phase II study in non-ccRCC failed to demonstrate the benefit of everolimus over sunitinib in first-line setting, although this study was small and was not supposed to draw final conclusions. Single-arm phase II trials have reported the results of sunitinib or everolimus in the papillary. The potential role of a sunitinib-gemcitabine combination has been investigated in RCC with sarcomatoid features. In parallel, the molecular characterization of non-ccRCC has been initiated, highlighting the heterogeneity of the distinct subtypes.

SUMMARY

Current efforts to develop clinical trials in non-ccRCC have provided preliminary results with approved agents. The molecular characterization programs have not yet translated into clinical meaningful results, but MET proto-oncogene inhibition holds promises in the population of papillary RCC. Non-ccRCC management raises the challenge of structuring networks to optimize pathological diagnosis, target identification, and for dedicated clinical trials design.

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none).

INTERPRETATION

In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors.

FUNDING

Novartis and Pfizer.

Benefit, Risk, and Outcomes in Drug Development: A Systematic Review of Sunitinib

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the total patient burden associated with clinical development and where burdens fall most heavily during a drug development program. Our goal was to quantify the total patient burden/benefit in developing a new drug.

METHODS

We measured risk using drug-related adverse events that were grade 3 or higher, benefit by objective response rate, and trial outcomes by whether studies met their primary endpoint with acceptable safety. The differences in risk (death rate) and benefit (overall response rate) between industry and nonindustry trials were analyzed with an inverse-variance weighted fixed effects meta-analysis implemented as a weighted regression analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We identified 103 primary publications of sunitinib monotherapy, representing 9092 patients and 3991 patient-years of involvement over 10 years and 32 different malignancies. In total, 1052 patients receiving sunitinib monotherapy experienced objective tumor response (15.7% of intent-to-treat population, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.3% to 16.0%), 98 died from drug-related toxicities (1.08%, 95% CI = 1.02% to 1.14%), and at least 1245 experienced grade 3-4 drug-related toxicities (13.7%, 95% CI = 13.3% to 14.1%). Risk/benefit worsened as the development program matured, with several instances of replicated negative studies and almost no positive trials after the first responding malignancies were discovered.

CONCLUSIONS

Even for a successful drug, the risk/benefit balance of trials was similar to phase I cancer trials in general. Sunitinib monotherapy development showed worsening risk/benefit, and the testing of new indications responded slowly to evidence that sunitinib monotherapy would not extend to new malignancies. Research decision-making should draw on evidence from whole research programs rather than a narrow band of studies in the same indication.

Everolimus Versus Sunitinib Prospective Evaluation in Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ESPN): A Randomized Multicenter Phase 2 Trial

BACKGROUND

Sunitinib and everolimus are standard first-line and second-line therapies, respectively, in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a randomized phase 2 trial comparing sunitinib and everolimus in non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with metastatic, non-ccRCC, or ccRCC with >20% sarcomatoid features (ccSRCC) were randomized to receive sunitinib or everolimus with crossover at disease progression.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENT AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line therapy; 108 patients were needed to show improvement in median PFS (mPFS) from 12 wk with sunitinib to 20 wk with everolimus.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Interim analysis of 68 patients (papillary [27], chromophobe [12], unclassified [10], translocation [7], ccSRCC [12]) prompted early trial closure. The mPFS in first-line therapy was 6.1 mo with sunitinib and 4.1 mo with everolimus (p=0.6); median overall survival (mOS) was not reached with sunitinib and was 10.5 mo with everolimus, respectively (p=0.014). At final analysis, mOS was 16.2 and 14.9 mo with sunitinib and everolimus, respectively (p=0.18). There were four partial responses (PRs) in first-line therapy (sunitinib: 3 of 33 [9%]; everolimus, 1 of 35 [2.8%]) and four PRs in second-line therapy (sunitinib: 2 of 21 [9.5%]; everolimus, 2 of 23 [8.6%]), with mPFS of 1.8 mo and 2.8 mo, respectively. In patients without sarcomatoid features in their tumors (n=49), mOS was 31.6 mo with sunitinib and 10.5 mo with everolimus (p=0.075). Genomic profiling of a chromophobe RCC from a patient with a PR to first-line everolimus revealed a somatic TSC2 mutation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial, everolimus was not superior to sunitinib. Both agents demonstrated modest efficacy, underscoring the need for better therapies in non-ccRCC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This randomized phase 2 trial provides the first head-to-head comparison of everolimus and sunitinib in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC). The observed very modest efficacy underscores the need to develop more effective therapies for non-ccRCC.

Safety and efficacy of sunitinib for advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma

AIM

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of sunitinib in the treatment of advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

Thirty-seven Chinese patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma were enrolled from October 2008 to October 2013. Sunitinib monotherapy was administered in repeated 6-week cycles of daily oral administration of 50 mg for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off. Computed tomography scan was used to evaluate the efficacy every two cycles.

RESULTS

All 37 patients received sunitinib treatment according to the schedule and were evaluated for response and toxicity. Thirty (81.1%) patients underwent nephrectomy before sunitinib treatment and seven (18.9%) patients had kidney biopsy. Twenty-five patients were diagnosed with papillary renal cell carcinoma, two with spindle cell-type renal cell carcinoma, two with chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and eight with unclassified cell types. The disease control rate was 73.0%, with partial response in 5 (13.5%), stable disease in 22 (59.5%) and progression disease in 10 (27.0%), the best tumor response. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6 months and the median overall survival (OS) was 9 months. In patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma, the median PFS was 6 months and the median OS was 10 months. The most common adverse events were hand-foot syndrome, fatigue, leukopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, mucositis, edema and hypertension. All adverse events were ameliorated by supportive treatment, dose reduction or treatment interruption.

CONCLUSION

Sunitinib was efficacious in the treatment of advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Most adverse events were tolerable.

Malignant epitheloid angiomyolipoma of the kidney in a child treated with sunitinib, everolimus and axitinib

The malignant variant of epithelioid angiomyolipoma (EAML) of the kidney is uncommon, extremely aggressive and behaves like a renal cell carcinoma. We present a case of a 12-year-old male with malignant EAML who was treated according to adult treatment protocols. To our knowledge, axitinib has not been used before in children. We conclude that adult protocols, in this rare case, could be safely used in rare childhood malignancies.

First-line treatment with sunitinib for type 1 and type 2 locally advanced or metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma: a phase II study (SUPAP) by the French Genitourinary Group (GETUG)†

BACKGROUND

Papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC), type 1 and type 2, represents 10%-15% of renal cell carcinomas (RCC). There is no standard first-line treatment of metastatic PRCC (mPRCC). Anti-angiogenics have shown activity in retrospective studies but no prospective studies in pure papillary histology have been reported, but one with foretinib.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective phase II study evaluated sunitinib in first-line treatment of mPRCC. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Fifteen and 46 patients, respectively, with type 1 and type 2 mPRCC were enrolled. Using the MSKCC scoring system: 12 (20%), 33 (55%) and 9 (15%) patients were, respectively, in the favourable, intermediate or poor risk group and 7 undetermined. Median follow-up is 51.4 months. In type 1, 2 patients 13% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-30.5] had a partial response (PR), 10 had stable disease (SD) with 5 (33%) ≥12 weeks. In type 2, 5 patients 11% (95% CI 1.9-20.3) had a PR, 25 had SD with 10(22%) ≥12 weeks. Median PFS was 6.6 months (95% CI 2.8-14.8) in type 1 and 5.5 months (95% CI 3.8-7.1) in type 2. Median OS was 17.8 (95% CI 5.7-26.1) and 12.4 (95% CI 8.2-14.3) months, respectively, in type 1 and 2. Safety was as expected with sunitinib for metastatic RCC.

CONCLUSION

Sunitinib showed activity in treatment of type 1 and 2 mPRCC but lower than in clear-cell mRCC. Both PFS and OS are longer in type I PRCC. Sunitinib represents an acceptable option in first-line treatment of mPRCC.

Papillary renal cell carcinoma: A review of the current therapeutic landscape

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common cancer of the kidney and accounts for 2-3% of all adult malignancies. Clear cell carcinoma represents the most common histologic subtype, while papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma (pRCC) accounts for 10-20% of all renal cell cancers. While the inactivation of VHL gene can be found in the majority of clear cell carcinomas, different molecular mechanisms are involved into pRCC biology. Mutations in the MET oncogene are an essential step into the pathogenesis of hereditary pRCC forms, but they can be found only in a small rate of sporadic cases. Several agents, including anti-VEGF drugs and mTOR inhibitors, are possible options in the treatment of advanced and metastatic pRCC, following the demonstration of efficacy obtained in clinical trials including all RCC histologic subtypes. However, data specifically obtained in the subgroup of patients affected by pRCC are limited and not conclusive. Several ongoing trials are evaluating the efficacy of targeted therapy in papillary form. However, more rationale approaches based on molecular studies would help improving the outcome of these patients. Among others, MET inhibitors and targeted immunotherapy are promising new strategies for hereditary and sporadic disease. This review summarizes current knowledge on pRCC tumorigenesis and discusses recent and ongoing clinical trials with new therapeutic agents.

Kidney cancer and 2014: is innovation really over?

ABSTRACT 

2014 has been a year of significant innovations on kidney cancer treatments, the most relevant of which will be shown below. In particular, we analyzed the consolidated knowledge regarding the role of surgery in localized and advanced renal cell carcinoma and the targeted therapies already approved for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, we examined the outstanding issues, with particular reference to the choice of the second-line and the role of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments. Finally, we outlined the future therapeutic perspectives and those definitely abandoned.

Metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: an evidence based review of current treatment strategies

Much progress has been made in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) over the last decade, with the development of agents that block the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway or the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway. The incorporation of these agents into treatment algorithms has been the result of carefully conducted clinical trials leading to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and subsequent adoption as the current standard of care. These trials, however, were dominated by patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), and little data are currently available on the treatment of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). nccRCC encompasses a biologically heterogeneous group of kidney tumors that portend very diverse prognoses and responses to therapy. This review is a pathway based approach that highlights the current systemic treatment strategies for metastatic nccRCC.