Systemic therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma after discontinuation of immune-oncology and VEGF targeted therapy combinations

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.

Cell Differentiation Trajectory Predicts Prognosis and Immunotherapeutic Response in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the main type of malignancy in kidney related to glucose metabolism. Primary single cell culture and single cell sequencing are novel research technologies. In this study, we explored the differentiation status of ccRCC cells and its significance in prognosis and immunotherapeutic response through bioinformatics. We characterized distinct differentiation states and differentiation-related genes (DRGs) in ccRCC cells through single cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis. Combined with bulk RNA-seq data, we classified patients into two clusters and found that this classification was closely correlated with patient prognosis and immunotherapeutic responses. Based on machine learning, we identified a prognostic risk model composed of 14 DRGs, including BTG2, CDKN1A, COL6A1, CPM, CYB5D2, FOSB, ID2, ISG15, PLCG2, SECISBP2, SOCS3, TES, ZBTB16, and ZNF704, to predict the survival rate of patients and then constructed a nomogram model integrating clinicopathological characteristics and risk score for clinical practice. In the study of immune checkpoints, we found that patients in the high-risk group had a disposition to get worse prognosis and better effects of immune checkpoint blocking therapies. Finally, we found the expression level of model DRGs was associated with a tumor-immune microenvironment (TIME) pattern and the response of 83 compounds or inhibitors was significantly different in the two risk groups. In a word, our study highlights the potential contribution of cell differentiation in prognosis judgment and immunotherapy response and offers promising therapeutic options for ccRCC patients.

Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet-Uro 19BEYOND study

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab and cabozantinib are currently approved agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but there are no data available for patients progressing to both treatments. The aim of this study was to compare active therapeutic options and best supportive care (BSC) after progression to nivolumab and cabozantinib in mRCC.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we selected 50 patients from eight Italian centers. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of patients on active treatment versus BSC. Secondary endpoints were the progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The efficacy of active therapy was also investigated.

RESULTS

After progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib, 57.1% of patients were given active treatment (mainly everolimus and sorafenib) while 42.9% received BSC. The median OS was 13 months (95% CI: 4-NR) in actively treated patients and 3 months (95% CI: 2-4) in BSC patients (p = 0.001). Patients treated with sorafenib had better disease control than those treated with everolimus (stable disease: 71.4% vs. 16.7%, progression disease: 14.3% vs. 58.3%; p = 0.03), with no significant differences in PFS (5 and 3 months, 95% CI: 1-6 vs. 2-5; p = 0.6) and OS (12 and 4 months, 95% CI: 3-NR vs. 2-NR; p = 0.2).

CONCLUSION

After treatment with both nivolumab and cabozantinib, the choice of a safe active systemic therapy offered better outcomes than BSC.

Antiangiogenic Properties of Axitinib versus Sorafenib Following Sunitinib Resistance in Human Endothelial Cells-A View towards Second Line Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatment

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors predominate as first-line therapy options for renal cell carcinoma. When first-line TKI therapy fails due to resistance development, an optimal second-line therapy has not yet been established. The present investigation is directed towards comparing the anti-angiogenic properties of the TKIs, sorafenib and axitinib on human endothelial cells (HUVECs) with acquired resistance towards the TKI sunitinib. HUVECs were driven to resistance by continuously exposing them to sunitinib for six weeks. They were then switched to a 24 h or further six weeks treatment with sorafenib or axitinib. HUVEC growth, as well as angiogenesis (tube formation and scratch wound assay), were evaluated. Cell cycle proteins of the CDK-cyclin axis (CDK1 and 2, total and phosphorylated, cyclin A and B) and the mTOR pathway (AKT, total and phosphorylated) were also assessed. Axitinib (but not sorafenib) significantly suppressed growth of sunitinib-resistant HUVECs when they were exposed for six weeks. This axinitib-associated growth reduction was accompanied by a cell cycle block at the G0/G1-phase. Both axitinib and sorafenib reduced HUVEC tube length and prevented wound closure (sorafenib > axitinib) when applied to sunitinib-resistant HUVECs for six weeks. Protein analysis revealed diminished phosphorylation of CDK1, CDK2 and pAKT, accompanied by a suppression of cyclin A and B. Both drugs modulated CDK-cyclin and AKT-dependent signaling, associated either with both HUVEC growth and angiogenesis (axitinib) or angiogenesis alone (sorafenib). Axitinib and sorafenib may be equally applicable as second line treatment options, following sunitinib resistance.

Subgroup analysis of the AFTER I-O study: a retrospective study on the efficacy and safety of subsequent molecular targeted therapy after immune-oncology therapy in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background

We performed subgroup analyses of the AFTER I-O study to clarify the association of time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and discontinuation reason of prior immune-oncology (I-O) therapy, and molecular targeted therapy (TT) regimen with the outcomes of TT after I-O.

Methods

The data of Japanese metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with TT after nivolumab (NIVO) (CheckMate 025) or NIVO + ipilimumab (IPI) (CheckMate 214) were retrospectively analyzed. The objective response rates (ORRs), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of TT after I-O were analyzed by subgroups: TTF (<6 or ≥6 months) and discontinuation reason of prior I-O (progression or adverse events), and TT regimen (sunitinib or axitinib). We also analyzed PFS2 of prior I-O and OS from first-line therapy.

Results

The ORR and median PFS of TT after NIVO and NIVO+IPI among the subgroups was 17–36% and 20–44%, and 7.1–11.6 months and 16.3-not reached (NR), respectively. The median OS of TT after NIVO was longer in patients with longer TTF of NIVO and treated with axitinib. Conversely, median OS of TT after NIVO+IPI was similar among subgroups. The median PFS2 of NIVO and NIVO+IPI was 36.7 and 32.0 months, respectively. The median OS from first-line therapy was 70.5 months for patients treated with NIVO and NR with NIVO+IPI. The safety profile of each TT after each I-O was similar to previous reports.

Conclusions

The efficacy of TT after NIVO or NIVO+IPI was favorable regardless of the TTF and discontinuation reason of prior I-O, and TT regimen.

Lenvatinib with or Without Everolimus in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma After Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapies

INTRODUCTION

Lenvatinib (Len) plus everolimus (Eve) is an approved therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after first-line vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs), but limited data exist on the efficacy of Len ± Eve after progression on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and VEGFR-TKIs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients with mRCC at our institution who were treated with Len ± Eve after ICI and VEGFR-TKI. A blinded radiologist assessed objective response as defined by RECIST version 1.1. Descriptive statistics and the Kaplan-Meier method were used.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were included in the analysis. Of these patients, 81.8% had clear-cell histology (ccRCC), and 76.4% had International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium intermediate-risk disease. Median number of prior therapies was four (range, 2-10); all patients had prior ICIs and VEGFR-TKIs, and 80% were previously treated with ICI and at least two VEGFR-TKIs, including cabozantinib. One patient (1.8%) achieved a complete response, and 11 patients (20.0%) achieved a partial response, for an overall response rate (ORR) of 21.8%; 35 patients (63.6%) achieved stable disease. In all patients, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-9.4) and median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months (95% CI, 8.8-16.0). In patients with ccRCC, ORR was 24.4%, PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.0-10.5), and OS was 11.7 months (95% CI, 7.9-16.1). 50.9% of patients required dose reductions and 7.3% discontinued treatment because of toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Len ± Eve demonstrated meaningful clinical activity and tolerability in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC after disease progression with prior ICIs and VEGFR-TKIs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

As the therapeutic landscape for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma continues to evolve, this single-center, retrospective review highlights the real-world efficacy of lenvatinib with or without everolimus in heavily pretreated patients. This article supports the use of lenvatinib with or without everolimus as a viable salvage strategy for patients whose disease progresses after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies, including cabozantinib.

What is next in second- and later-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma? review of the recent literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has changed dramatically from the dominance of single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy to immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations in recent years. However, the optimal subsequent therapy remains ill-defined owing to the novelty of this approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

Treatment with TKIs after failure of single or dual ICI therapies may result in robust clinical efficacy. Nonetheless, there is a trend toward lower efficacy of TKIs after previous ICI-TKI combination therapy. Currently, tivozanib is the only drug whose third- and later-line use after failure of TKI and ICI is supported by evidence, with significantly longer progression-free survival and higher objective response rates than sorafenib. Data from retrospective studies highlight the safety and clinical activity of ICI rechallenge.

SUMMARY

Overall, the level of evidence remains low. Treatment after failure of dual ICI therapy is not well defined and may consist of any available TKI. Although first-line use of TKI is less common, strong evidence suggests cabozantinib or nivolumab as standard options in that setting. The recommendations after first-line TKI-ICI therapy failure mirror this recommendation, although the data are less robust.

The need for new algorithms of treatment sequencing in clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Introduction: In recent years, the systemic treatment of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) has undergone profound innovations, offering the availability of new drugs, and raising the bar of the survival expectation in this, previously, almost-always, incurable disease. The likeliness of reaching durable response and long-term survival is still closely linked to good clinical management and smart treatment sequencing, rather than to a single systemic treatment choice.Areas covered: We review all systemic therapeutic options currently available, describe the evidence behind the current options available for mRCC patient treatment, and provide our personal cues to support clinical decisions.Expert opinion: The IMDC classification is still the only widely validated tool for the choice of primary therapy. Other elements should then be considered for selecting patients who can still receive TKI monotherapy (good-risk patients) or who deserve an 'all-at-once' approach with TKI plus ICI (poor-risk patients with the high metastatic burden and poor-prognosis organ involvement, likely not able to achieve a second chance), identifying these two 'extreme' situations and setting all the other treatment choices on the basis of several nuances. In the second- and further-line settings, ad-hoc prospective trials are awaited.