Outcomes According to MSKCC Risk Score with Focus on the Intermediate-Risk Group in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with First-Line Sunitinib: A Retrospective Analysis of 2390 Patients

Non-coding transcriptome profiles in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma

Clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is a common urological malignancy with an increasing incidence. The development of molecular biomarkers that can predict the response to treatment and guide personalized therapy selection would substantially improve patient outcomes. Dysregulation of non-coding RNA (ncRNA) has been shown to have a role in the pathogenesis of ccRCC. Thus, an increasing number of studies are being carried out with a focus on the identification of ncRNA biomarkers in ccRCC tissue samples and the connection of these markers with patients' prognosis, pathological stage and grade (including metastatic potential), and therapy outcome. RNA sequencing analysis led to the identification of several ncRNA biomarkers that are dysregulated in ccRCC and might have a role in ccRCC development. These ncRNAs have the potential to be prognostic and predictive biomarkers for ccRCC, with prospective applications in personalized treatment selection. Research on ncRNA biomarkers in ccRCC is advancing, but clinical implementation remains preliminary owing to challenges in validation, standardization and reproducibility. Comprehensive studies and integration of ncRNAs into clinical trials are essential to accelerate the clinical use of these biomarkers.

Outcomes of first-line treatment and their association with pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Insights from a tertiary care institute in Pakistan

Background

Renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) are renal parenchymal neoplasms that contribute to <5% of cancer cases worldwide. Within the diverse group of renal tumours, clear cell carcinoma is the most common subtype. The recommended first-line treatment for metastatic disease is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor given either as monotherapy or in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, based on improved survival outcomes. These endpoints are not only influenced by the initial risk stratification but also by certain variables such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NLR) ratio.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted to evaluate the progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line treatment in patients with metastatic RCC treated at our institute from the year 2017-2021. We also investigated the association of PFS with both Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk groups and the pretreatment NLR ratio.

Results

Overall, 35 patients were enrolled after fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Of these, 25 patients received Pazopanib, 5 patients were treated with Sunitinib and the remaining patients were administered Pembrolizumab with Axitinib. Two-thirds of the study population belonged to the intermediate-risk group. The median PFS for all participants was 16 months. Among the overall population, patients in the favourable-risk group demonstrated superior PFS. Patients with elevated pretreatment NLR experienced shorter PFS compared to the patients with low to normal NLR.

Conclusion

This review highlights the prognostic significance of initial risk stratification and pretreatment NLR in predicting the response to first-line treatment in metastatic RCC patients. As this is a comprehensive study emphasizing the outcomes of metastatic RCC in Pakistan, it fills a void in the literature by providing invaluable perspectives on the real-world outcomes of patients. This not only enhances our understanding of disease management in this region but also lays the foundation for future investigations.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression.

Objectives

The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Methods

The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Results

The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Conclusions

Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Data from the STAR-TOR Registry and Detailed Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the effectiveness and safety profile of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (a/mRCC) in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We analyzed data of adult a/mRCC patients treated with sunitinib. Data were derived from the German non-interventional post-approval multicenter STAR-TOR registry (NCT00700258). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated using descriptive statistics and survival analyses for the entire cohort and patient subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 116 study sites recruited 702 patients treated with sunitinib (73.1% male; median age 68.0 years; median Karnofsky index 90%) between November 2010 and May 2020. The most frequent histological subtype was clear cell RCC (81.6%). Sunitinib was administered as first-line treatment in 83.5%, as second line in 11.7%, and as third line or beyond in 4.8% of the patients. Drug-related AEs and serious AEs were reported in 66.3% and 13.9% of the patients, respectively (most common AE: gastrointestinal disorders; 39.7% of all patients).

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds further real-world evidence of the persisting relevance of sunitinib for patients with a/mRCC who cannot receive or tolerate immune checkpoint inhibitors. The study population includes a high proportion of patients with unfavorable MSKCC poor-risk score, but shows still good PFS and OS results, while the drug demonstrates a favorable safety profile. The STAR-TOR registry is also registered in the database of US library of medicine (NCT00700258).

Association of lncRNA and transcriptome intersections with response to targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) serve an important role in cancer progression and may be used as efficient molecular biomarkers. The present study aimed to identify lncRNAs associated with the response to the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib and transcriptome profile and clinical features of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The gene expression of 84 cancer-associated lncRNAs in tumor and non-malignant tissue samples of 38 patients with mRCC was evaluated using quantitative PCR. In addition, the coding transcriptome was estimated using RNA sequencing in a subgroup of 20 patients and mRNA-lncRNA intersections were identified. In total, 37 and 13 lncRNAs were down- and upregulated, respectively, in tumor compared with non-malignant adjacent tissue samples. A total of 10 and 4 lncRNAs were up- and downregulated, respectively, in good responders to sunitinib compared with poor responders. High expression of HNF1A-AS1 and IPW lncRNAs was associated with prolonged progression-free survival of patients and a high expression of the TUSC7 lncRNA was associated with poor response and worse survival. Significant associations of dysregulated MEG3 and SNHG16 lncRNAs with expression of protein-coding genes representing various pathways, were identified. Furthermore, a significantly higher expression of CLIP4 gene was observed in good responders. The present study revealed promising candidates for predictive and prognostic biomarkers with further therapeutic potential.

Is It Time to Integrate Frailty Assessment in Onconephrology?

Simple Summary

There are an increasing number of older people living with kidney cancer and/or cancer and kidney disease worldwide, sparking a wider discussion on the impact of frailty and the clinical significance of conducting frailty assessments for this patient population. We provide an update on the current evidence related to frailty assessment in onconephrology and identify areas where further research efforts are anticipated to address knowledge gaps within this topic.

Abstract

Onconephrology has emerged as a novel sub-specialty of nephrology dedicated to the intersection between the kidney and cancer. This intersection is broad and includes a number of important areas of focus, including concurrent chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cancer, acute kidney complications of cancer, and cancer-treatment-induced nephrotoxicity. The importance of onconephrology is even more evident when considering the global growth in the population of older adults, many of whom are living with some degree of frailty. Furthermore, a considerable proportion of older adults have CKD (some of whom eventually progress to kidney failure) and are at high risk of developing solid tumour and hematologic malignancies. Specific to kidney disease, the association between frailty status and kidney disease has been explored in depth, and tools to capture frailty can be used to guide the management and prognostication of older adults living with kidney failure. Whilst there is emerging data regarding the assessment and impact of frailty in onconephrology, there remains a relative paucity of knowledge within this topic. In this article, we evaluate the definition and operationalization of frailty and discuss the significance of frailty within onconephrology. We review evidence on current approaches to assessing frailty in onconephrology and discuss potential developments and future directions regarding the utilization of frailty in this patient population. A greater awareness of the intersections and interactions between frailty and onconephrology and further efforts to integrate frailty assessment in onconephrology to optimize the delivery of realistic and goal-directed management strategies for patients is needed.

Predictive Biomarkers of Overall Survival in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with IFNα ± Bevacizumab: Results from CALGB 90206 (Alliance)

PURPOSE

CALGB 90206 was a phase III trial of 732 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) comparing bevacizumab plus IFNα (BEV + IFN) with IFNα alone (IFN). No difference in overall survival (OS) was observed. Baseline samples were analyzed to identify predictive biomarkers for survival benefit.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 32 biomarkers were assessed in 498 consenting patients randomly assigned into training (n = 279) and testing (n = 219) sets. The proportional hazards model was used to test for treatment arm and biomarker interactions of OS. The estimated coefficients from the training set were used to compute a risk score for each patient and to classify patients by risk in the testing set. The resulting model was assessed for predictive accuracy using the time-dependent area under the ROC curve (tAUROC).

RESULTS

A statistically significant three-way interaction between IL6, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and bevacizumab treatment was observed in the training set and confirmed in the testing set (P < 0.0001). The model based on IL6, HGF, and bevacizumab treatment was predictive of OS (P < 0.001), with the high- and low-risk groups having a median OS of 10.2 [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.0-13.8] and 34.3 (95% CI, 28.5-40.5) months, respectively. The average tAUROC for the final model of OS based on 100 randomly split testing sets was 0.78 (first, third quartiles = 0.77, 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

IL6 and HGF are potential predictive biomarkers of OS benefit from BEV + IFN in patients with mRCC. The model based on key biological and clinical factors demonstrated predictive efficacy for OS. These markers warrant further validation in future anti-VEGF and immunotherapy in mRCC trials. See related commentaries by Mishkin and Kohn, p. 2722 and George and Bertagnolli, p. 2725.

Identifying homogeneous healthcare use profiles and treatment sequences by combining sequence pattern mining with care trajectory clustering in kidney cancer patients on oral anticancer drugs: A case study

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the ability of a coupled pattern-mining and clustering method to identify homogeneous groups of subjects in terms of healthcare resource use, prognosis and treatment sequences, in renal cancer patients beginning oral anticancer treatment.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from the permanent sample of the French medico-administrative database. We applied the CP-SPAM algorithm for pattern mining to healthcare use sequences, followed by hierarchical clustering on principal components (HCPC).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

We identified 127 individuals with renal cancer with a first reimbursement of an oral anticancer drug between 2010 and 2017. Clustering identified three groups of subjects, and discrimination between these groups was good. These clusters differed significantly in terms of mortality at six and 12 months, and medical follow-up profile (predominantly outpatient or inpatient care, biological monitoring, reimbursement of supportive care drugs). This case study highlights the potential utility of applying sequence-mining algorithms to a large range of healthcare reimbursement data, to identify groups of subjects homogeneous in terms of their care pathways and medical behaviors.

Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis of Renal Cell Carcinoma With Spinal Bone Metastases

Background

The prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with spinal bone metastasis (sBM) varies greatly. In this study, we aimed to define the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of RCC with spinal bone metastasis (sBM) in our center.

Methods

The clinical and medical records of RCC patients with sBMs were collected. The gender, age, time of BM, the extent of BM, the number of BMs, the presence or absence of visceral metastasis, and the pathological type of BM were investigated. All patients were followed up regularly. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of BMs diagnosis to death or last follow-up using Kaplan-Meier method and modelled with Cox regression analysis.

Results

Forty-three RCC patients with sBM were collected. sBM was found synchronously in 30 patients (70%) and metachronously in 13 patients (30%). The median survival time was 30 months in 13 patients (30%) with solitary sBM and 19 months in 30 patients (70%) with multiple sBMs (P = 0.002). Visceral metastasis occurred in 12 patients (28%) with the median survival time of 17 months, while the other 31 patients (72%) had no visceral metastasis with the median survival time of 29 months (P<0.001). En-block resection was done in 10 patients with median survival time of 40.1 months. Non-en-block resection were done in 33 patients with median survival time of 19.7 months (P<0.001). Multivariate COX regression analysis showed that MSKCC score, number of BM, visceral metastasis, and en-block resection are the independent prognosis factors of RCC patients with sBM.

Conclusions

MSKCC risk stratification, number of sBM, visceral metastasis and en-block resection are significant prognostic factors for OS in RCC patients with spinal BM. Therefore, for selected patients who has solitary spinal BM with no visceral metastasis, en-block resection of spinal BM can potentially prolong survival and is the treatment of choice.

Real-world outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma according to risk factors: the STAR-TOR registry

Aim: Examine outcomes in sunitinib-treated patients by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) or Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk factors. Patients & methods: Patients enrolled in STAR-TOR registry (n = 327). End points included overall survival, progression-free survival and objective response rate. Results: Overall survival was similar for IMDC 0 versus 1 (p = 0.238) or 2 versus ≥3 (p = 0.156), but different for MSKCC (0 vs 1, p = 0.037; 2 vs ≥3, p = 0.001). Progression-free survival was similar for IMDC 2 versus 3 (p = 0.306), but different for MSKCC (p = 0.009). Objective response rate was different for IMDC 1 (41.9%) and 2 (29.5%) and similar for MSKCC 1 (34.4%) and 2 (31.0%). Conclusion: Outcome data varied according to IMDC or MSKCC. MSKCC model accurately stratify patients into risk groups. Clinical trial registration: NCT00700258 (ClinicalTrials.gov).