Next Steps: Sequencing Therapies in Metastatic Kidney Cancer in the Contemporary Era

Role of Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal cell Carcinoma in the Era of immunotherapy: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of the clinical outcome of CN (Cytoreductive Nephrectomy) in cases of mccRCC (Metastatic Clear Cell Renal cell Carcinoma) is still uncertain despite two trials, SURTIME and CARMENA. These trials, conducted with Sunitinib as the standard treatment, did not provide evidence supporting the use of CN.

METHODS

We queried the NCDB for stage IV mccRCC patients between the years of 2004 to 2020, who received (immunotherapy) IO with or without nephrectomy. Overall survival (OS) was calculated among three groups of IO alone, IO followed by CN (IOCN), CN followed by IO (CNIO). Cox models compared OS by treatment group after adjusting for sociodemographic, health, and facility variables.

RESULTS

From 1,549,101 renal cancer cases, 7983 clear and nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma cases were identified. After adjusting for sociodemographic and health covariates, patients who received IO followed by CN or CN followed by IO had a respective 64% (adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR] = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.30-0.43, P = .006] and 47% (aHR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.49-0.56, P = .001) mortality risk reduction respectively compared to patients who received IO alone. Compared to White adults, individuals who identified as Black exhibited 17% higher risk mortality (aHR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.06-1.30, P = .002). Patients who received CN prior to IO had a 59% associated mortality risk compared to patients who received IO followed by CN who had a lower risk, 35.7% (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving CN regardless of sequence with IO did better than IO alone in this national registry-based adjusted analysis for mccRCC. Presently available data indicates that the combination of CN and IO holds promise for enhancing clinical results in patients with mRCC.

Two is company, is three a crowd? Triplet therapy, novel molecular targets, and updates on the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to highlight the most recent changes in the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma, a complicated and ever-changing field of research.

RECENT FINDINGS

A recent meta-analysis examining combination therapy favors nivolumab plus cabozantinib as the overall survival leader in doublet therapy. Initial results on the first ever trial of triplet therapy have demonstrated improved progression-free survival over current standard of care. The hypoxia-inducible factor-2α (HIF-2α) inhibitor belzutifan is FDA approved for patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease and is currently being investigated in patients with nonhereditary renal cell carcinoma. The new glutamate synthesis inhibitor, telaglenastat, perhaps confers synergistic benefit when combined with everolimus, but combination with cabozantinib was not so effective. Dual mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition with sapanisertib does not appear to be an effective therapeutic option. New biomarkers and targets are actively being investigated. Four recent trials examining alternative agents to pembrolizumab in the adjuvant setting did not demonstrate an improvement in recurrence-free survival. Cytoreductive nephrectomy in the combination therapy era is supported by retrospective data; clinical trials are recruiting patients.

SUMMARY

The last year ushered in novel approaches of varying success for managing advanced renal cell carcinoma, including triplet therapy, HIF-2α inhibitors, metabolic pathway inhibitors, and dual mTOR inhibitors. Pembrolizumab remains the only modern therapy available in the adjuvant setting, and the waters surrounding cytoreductive nephrectomy are still murky.

Progression-Free and Overall Survival of First-Line Treatments for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Indirect Comparison of Six Combination Regimens

Background: Recently, numerous combination therapies based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors have been proposed as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Our study aimed to compare the efficacy of these combination regimens by the application of an innovative method that reconstructs individual patient data. Methods: Six phase III studies describing different combination regimens for aRCC were selected. Individual patient data were reconstructed from Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves through the “Shiny method”. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared among combination treatments and sunitinib. Results were summarized as multi-treatment KM curves. Standard statistical testing was used, including hazard ratio and likelihood ratio tests for heterogeneity. Results: In the overall population of aRCC patients, pembrolizumab + lenvatinib showed the longest median PFS and was expected to determine the longest OS. Pembrolizumab + axitinib, nivolumab + cabozantinib and nivolumab + ipilimumab were similar in terms of PFS, but pembrolizumab + axitinib also demonstrated a better OS. Our subgroup analysis showed that sunitinib is still a valuable option, whereas, in intermediate-poor risk patients, pembrolizumab + axitinib and nivolumab + ipilimumab significantly improve OS compared to sunitinib. Conclusion: The Shiny method allowed us to perform all head-to-head indirect comparisons between these agents in a context in which “real” comparative trials have not been performed.

FRACTION-RCC: nivolumab plus ipilimumab for advanced renal cell carcinoma after progression on immuno-oncology therapy

BACKGROUND

The role and sequencing of combination immuno-oncology (IO) therapy following progression on or after first-line IO therapy has not been well-established. The Fast Real-time Assessment of Combination Therapies in Immuno-ONcology (FRACTION) program is an open-label, phase 2 platform trial designed to evaluate multiple IO combinations in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) who progressed during or after prior IO therapy. Here, we describe the results for patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For enrollment in track 2 (reported here), patients with histologically confirmed clear cell aRCC, Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and life expectancy ≥3 months who had previously progressed after IO (anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1), anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4)) therapy were eligible. Previous treatment with anti-CTLA-4 therapy plus anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy precluded eligibility for enrollment in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm. Patients were treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks for up to 2 years or until progression, toxicity, or protocol-specified discontinuation. The primary outcome measures were objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were safety and tolerability up to 2 years. Overall survival (OS) was a tertiary/exploratory endpoint. Overall, 46 patients were included with a median follow-up of 33.8 months. The ORR was 17.4% (95% CI, 7.8 to 31.4) with eight (17.4%) patients achieving partial response. Stable disease was achieved in 19 (41.3%) patients, while 14 (30.4%) had progressive disease. Median DOR (range) was 16.4 (2.1+ to 27.0+) months. The PFS rate at 24 weeks was 43.2%, and median OS was 23.8 (95% CI, 13.2 to not reached) months. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated adverse events were reported in seven (15.2%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Patients with aRCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab may derive durable clinical benefit after progression on previous IO therapies, including heavily pretreated patients, with a manageable safety profile that was consistent with previously published safety outcomes. These outcomes contribute to the knowledge of optimal sequencing of IO therapies for patients with aRCC with high unmet needs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02996110.

Role of metastasectomy in the management of renal cell carcinoma

Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved with the development of a variety of systemic agents; however, these therapies alone rarely lead to a complete response. Complete consolidative surgery with surgical metastasectomy has been associated with improved survival outcomes in well-selected patients in previous reports. No randomized control trial exists to determine the effectiveness of metastasectomy. Therefore, reviewing observational studies is important to best determine which patients are most appropriate for metastasectomy for mRCC and if such treatment continues to be effective with the development of new systemic therapies such as immunotherapy. In this narrative review, we discuss the indications for metastasectomies, outcomes, factors associated with improved survival, and special considerations such as location of metastasis, number of metastases, synchronous metastases, and use of systemic therapy. Additionally, alternative treatment options and trials involving metastasectomy will be reviewed.

Management of Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations for the management of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

METHODS

An Expert Panel conducted a systematic literature review to obtain evidence to guide treatment recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel considered peer-reviewed reports published in English.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The diagnosis of metastatic ccRCC should be made using tissue biopsy of the primary tumor or a metastatic site with the inclusion of markers and/or stains to support the diagnosis. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk criteria should be used to inform treatment. Cytoreductive nephrectomy may be offered to select patients with kidney-in-place and favorable- or intermediate-risk disease. For those who have already had a nephrectomy, an initial period of active surveillance may be offered if they are asymptomatic with a low burden of disease. Patients with favorable-risk disease who need systemic therapy may be offered an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in combination with a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI); patients with intermediate or poor risk should be offered a doublet regimen (no recommendation was provided between ICIs or an ICI in combination with a VEGFR TKI). For select patients, monotherapy with either an ICI or a VEGFR TKI may be offered on the basis of comorbidities. Interleukin-2 remains an option, although selection criteria could not be identified. Recommendations are also provided for second- and subsequent-line therapy as well as the treatment of bone metastases, brain metastases, or the presence of sarcomatoid features. Participation in clinical trials is highly encouraged for patients with metastatic ccRCC.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.

Imaging Response to Contemporary Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

The association between treatment with first-line immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapies and physician-assessed objective imaging response among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains uncharacterized.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the likelihood of objective imaging response (ie, complete or partial response) to first-line IO combination ipilimumab-nivolumab (IOIO) therapy vs approved IO with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (IOVE) combination therapies among patients with mRCC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter international cohort study was nested in routine clinical practice. A data set from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) was used to identify consecutive patients with mRCC who received treatment with IO combination therapies between May 30, 2013, and September 9, 2021. A total of 899 patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of mRCC who received treatment with a first-line IOVE or IOIO regimen and had evaluable responses were included.

EXPOSURES

Best overall response to first-line IO combination therapy based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the difference in treating physician-assessed objective imaging response based on the type of first-line IO combination therapy received. Secondary outcomes included the identification of baseline characteristics positively associated with objective imaging response and the association of objective imaging response with overall survival.

RESULTS

Among 1085 patients with mRCC who received first-line IO combination therapies, 899 patients (median age, 62.8 years [IQR, 55.9-69.2 years]; 666 male [74.2%]) had evaluable responses. A total of 794 patients had information available on IMDC risk classification; of those, 127 patients (16.0%) had favorable risk, 442 (55.7%) had intermediate risk, and 225 (28.3%) had poor risk. With regard to best overall response among all participants, 37 patients (4.1%) had complete response, 344 (38.3%) had partial response, 315 (35.0%) had stable disease, and 203 (22.6%) had progressive disease. Corresponding median overall survival was not estimable (95% CI, 53.3 months to not estimable) among patients with complete response, 55.9 months (95% CI, 44.1 months to not estimable) among patients with partial response, 48.1 months (95% CI, 33.4 months to not estimable) among patients with stable disease, and 13.0 months (95% CI, 8.4-18.1 months) among patients with progressive disease (log rank P < .001). Treatment with IOVE therapy was found to be independently associated with an increased likelihood of obtaining response (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.26-2.81; P = .002) compared with IOIO therapy. The presence of lung metastases (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20), receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43), and favorable IMDC risk (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.39) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of response.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, treatment with IOVE therapy was associated with significantly increased odds of objective imaging response compared with IOIO therapy. The presence of lung metastases, receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy, and favorable IMDC risk were associated with increased odds of experiencing objective imaging response. These findings may help inform treatment selection, especially in clinical contexts associated with high-volume multisite metastatic disease, in which obtaining objective imaging response is important.

New Paradigms for Cytoreductive Nephrectomy

Simple Summary

Cytoreductive surgery (CS) is performed to remove the primary tumor in the setting of metastatic disease. In metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in the treatment paradigm has evolved, adjusting to new changes in systemic therapy agents. In particular, immunotherapeutic agents, which utilize the body’s own immune system to attack cancerous cells, have improved over the past decade. Newer immunotherapy agents offer more effective treatments in mRCC, with the goal of more tolerable side effect profiles. However, now urologic and medical oncologists must reframe the role of CN in the context of these new systemic therapies. This review will discuss the current data on this topic as well as the historical context in which it is being studied.

Abstract

The role of CN in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been studied over the course of the past few decades. With the advent of immuno-oncologic (IO) agents, there has been a paradigm shift in the treatment of RCC. Within this new era of cancer care, the role of CN is unclear. There are several studies currently underway that aim to assess the role of CN in combination with these therapies. We reviewed articles examining CN, both historically and in the modern immunotherapy era. While immune-oncologic agents are relatively new and large clinical trials have yet to be completed, data thus far is promising that CN may provide clinical benefit. Multiple ongoing trials may clarify the role of CN in this new era of cancer care.