How to deal with renal toxicities from immune-based combination treatments in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A nephrological consultation for Oncologists

We are witnessing a revolution in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Indeed, several immune-based combinations (ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] + ICI, or ICI + antiangiogenic agents) have been approved as first-line therapy for mRCC after demonstrating superior efficacy over the previous standard. Despite all the improvements made, safety remains a critical issue, adverse events (AEs) being the main reason for drug discontinuations or dose reductions, ultimately resulting in an increased risk of losing efficacy. Thus, a good understanding of the AEs associated with the use of immune-based combinations, their prevention, and management, are key in order to maximize therapeutic effectiveness. Among these AEs, renal ones are relatively frequent, but always difficult to be diagnosed, not to take into account that it is often difficult to determine which drug is to blame for such toxicities. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common finding in patients with RCC, either as a pre-existing condition and/or as a consequence of cancer and its treatment; furthermore, CKD, especially in advanced stages and in patients undergoing dialysis, may influence the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics properties of anticancer agents. Finally, managing cancer therapy in kidney transplanted patients is another challenge. In this review, we discuss the therapy management of immune-based combinations in patients with CKD, on dialysis, or transplanted, as well as their renal toxicities, with a focus on their prevention, detection and practical management, taking into account the crucial role of the consulting nephrologist within the multidisciplinary care of these patients.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors combinations as first-line systemic treatment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) with platinum-based chemotherapy (PlatinumCT) or with another ICI in the first-line setting for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) have mixed results.

METHODS

Records were searched electronically from January 2019 to January 2024. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

Immune-based combinations were associated with an OS (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.92; p < 0.001; I2= 84.1%) and PFS benefit in the intention-to-treat population (HR: 0.67; 95%CI: 0.51-0.89; p < 0.001; I2 = 89.7%). There was no ORR improvement with immune-based combinations (HR: 1.36; 95% CI:0.84-2.20; p < 0.001; I2 = 92.6%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and study-level meta-analysis demonstrated that the immune-based combinations in first-line treatment for patients with mUC are associated with survival benefit.

Chromosome 3p gene alterations as biomarkers for immunocombinations in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A hypothesis-generating analysis

BACKGROUND

Identifying biomarkers for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is an unmet need in actual immunotherapy era. Available data regarding chromosome 3p genes (i.e., VHL, PBRM1, SETD2) mutations as potential predictors for therapy response is conflicting. We describe the impact of these mutations on clinical outcomes in mRCC patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-doublet or ICI/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis on mRCC patients treated with first line ICI/ICI or ICI/TKI. A multi-gene panel was used, allowing the amplification of 841 amplicons (54.93 kb, human reference sequence hg19/GRCh37) in the coding sequences of the following genes: ATM, BAP1, KDM5C, MET, MTOR, NF2, PBRM1, PIK3CA, PTEN, SETD2, SMARCB1, TP53, TSC1, TSC2, VHL.

RESULTS

18 patients undergoing ICI/ICI and ICI/TKI who had tumor tissue adequate for molecular analysis were included. Histology was 100% clear cell. IMDC risk was 50% intermediate, 33.4% good, 16.6% poor. First line therapy was 89% ICI/TKI, 11% ICI/ICI. 83.3% pts (n = 15) carried genomic alterations (GA). Most common GA included VHL in 44% (n = 8; 7 pathogenic - PAT and 1 variant of unknown significance - VUS), PBRM1 in 44% (n = 8; 5 PAT and 3 VUS) and SETD2 in 33% (n = 6; 4 PAT and 2 VUS). With the limit of a small sample that did not allow proper statistical analyses, SETD2-mutated patients had lower median progression free (mPFS) and overall survival (mOS) than non-SETD2 mutated patients. Higher mPFS and mOS were shown with VHL or PBRM1 GA, especially in PBRM1 +VHL mutated pts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data shows a possible negative predictive role of SETD2 GA for ICI-based therapy in RCC. Concomitant VHL and PBRM1 GA could act as a predictor for ICI/TKI efficacy. Our hypothesis-generating analysis highlights the need of an integrated evaluation of these genes as promising biomarkers in RCC. Further larger studies are required.

Immune-based combinations for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recent years have witnessed the advent of novel treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), including combination therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Herein, we conducted an up-to-date and comprehensive meta-analysis including recently published data of phase III clinical trials evaluating immune-based combinations in mRCC.

METHODS

We retrieved all the relevant trials published from 15th June 2008 to 24th February 2021, evaluating immune-based combinations in treatment-naïve mRCC through PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and EMBASE; additionally, proceedings of the main international oncological meetings were also searched for relevant abstracts. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), complete response (CR) rate, and overall response rate (ORR). Hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS and PFS, and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for CR rate and ORR, were extracted.

RESULTS

Overall, 6 phase III studies involving 5175 treatment-naïve mRCC patients were available for the meta-analysis (immune-based combinations, n = 2576; sunitinib, n = 2597). According to our results, the use of immune-based combinations decreased the risk of death by 26% (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.81, P < 0.001); similarly, a PFS benefit was observed (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.85, P = 0.001). In addition, immune-based combinations showed better CR rate and ORR, with ORs of 3.04 (95% CI 2.31-3.99, P = 0.001) and 2.53 (95% CI 1.77-3.62, P < 0.03), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our meta-analysis confirm the clinical benefit provided by immunotherapy combinations, with CR rate more than tripled in mRCCs receiving immune-based combinations. Further studies in real-world setting are warranted to validate the findings of our meta-analysis, the most updated to systematically evaluate immune-based combinations in mRCC.