Real World Analysis of Peritoneal Metastasis From Renal Cell Carcinoma. Meet-Uro27

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastases (PM) have been reported in approximately 1% of patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC). Outcome data are limited due to the rarity of this metastatic site. Therefore, the aim of our study is to describe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with PM treated as per clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Baseline characteristics and outcome data of patients with PM from RCC were retrospectively collected from 18 Italian oncological referral centers adhering to the Meet-Uro group, from January 2016 to January 2023.

RESULTS

We collect 81 RCC patients with PM. 78/81 received systemic treatment, 3/81 only best supportive care. First line treatment included tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI) (46/78), ImmuneOncology (IO)-TKI (26/78) and IO-IO (6/78), with different Objective Response Rate (ORR) (43.4% in TKI monotherapy group vs 50% in IO-TKI group, respectively) and Disease Control Rate (DCR) (60.8% in TKI treated patients vs. 76.9% in IO-TKI treated patients). Median PFS was 6.4 months (95%CI 4.18-14.8) in patients treated with TKI monotherapy vs 23.7 months (95%CI 11.1-NR) in patients treated with IO-TKI (p < 0.015). The median OS (mOS) was 22.7 months (95%CI 13.32 - 64.7) in the TKI monotherapy group vs 34.5 mo (95%CI NR-NR) in the IO-TKI group with 53.8% of patients alive at 1 years in the latter group, (p < 0.16). Primary refractory patients were 36.9% for TKI and 15.3% for IO-TKI. According to International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score, mPFS and mOS were consistent among risk categories. Median PFS was 36.6 months (95%CI 10.9-NR) for good risk patients compared to 10 months (95%CI 7.5-29.8) for intermediate risk and 2.96 months (95%CI 2.43-11.28) for poor risk population (p < 0.0005) whereas mOS was NR (95%CI 28.65-NR) for good risk patients compared to 35.3 months (95%CI 24.6-NA) and 12.4 months (95%CI 3.52-NR) for intermediate and poor risk population, respectively, (p < 0.0002). Only 34/78 (43.5%) received a second line treatment that was TKI (ORR 8.3% and DCR 41.6%) or IO (ORR 18.1% and DCR 40.9%).

CONCLUSION

We report one of the largest case series regarding PM from RCC. Characteristics of patients suggest a more aggressive behavior of PM from mRCC. Outcome data suggest that TKI-IO as first line treatment, and TKI as second line, confirm their activity for these patients with dismal prognosis.

Managing First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Favorable-Risk Disease

Defining metastatic renal-cell carcinoma as a favorable risk depends on clinical risk-stratification tools such as the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium or the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center scores. The favorable-risk disease tends to have better prognosis and survival compared with disease stratified as either intermediate or poor risk and can be attributed in part to an indolent tumor biology. Several phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival and objective response rate, but not overall survival benefit with combinations of immunotherapy and vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors compared with sunitinib in favorable-risk disease.

Therapeutic Management of Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Revolution in Every Decade

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) oncogenesis is mainly driven by VHL gene inactivation, leading to overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The use of tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) directed against VEGF and its receptor (VEGFR) revolutionised the management of metastatic renal cancer in the 2000s. The more recent development of next-generation TKIs such as cabozantinib or lenvatinib has made it possible to bypass some of the mechanisms of resistance to first-generation anti-VEGFR TKIs. During the decade 2010-2020, the development of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapies revolutionised the management of many solid cancers, including RCC, in first- and subsequent-line settings. Dual ICB or ICB plus anti-VEGFR TKI combinations are now the standard of care for patients with advanced clear cell RCC. To optimise these combination therapies while preserving patient quality of life, escalation and de-escalation strategies are being evaluated in prospective randomised trials, based on patient selection according to their prognosis risk. Finally, new therapeutic approaches, such as targeting hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) and the development of innovative treatments using antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), CAR-T cells, or radiopharmaceuticals, are all potential candidates to improve further patient survival.

VHL and DNA damage repair pathway alterations as potential clinical biomarkers for first-line TKIs in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinomas

Purpose

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) are being used for the first-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Here, we set out to explore associations between genomic statuses, gene expression clusters and clinical outcomes of mccRCCs upon the application of VEGFR-TKIs.

Methods

A retrospective study of 56 patients with mccRCC who received first-line VEGFR-TKIs and who underwent genomic profiling and whole transcriptome sequencing was conducted. Survival analysis was carried out using log-rank tests and Cox regression analyses, and Kaplan–Meier curves were plotted. Clustering was performed using the K-means method.

Results

Among the 56 patients tested, 17 harbored DNA Damage and Repair (DDR) pathway alterations and 35 VHL mutations. The median progression-free survival (PFS) rates for the DDR and VHL alteration groups were 18 and 18 months, respectively, compared with 14 and 10 months for the nonmutant groups. DDR mutations, VHL mutations and co-mutations were identified as prognostic biomarkers of a longer PFS (p = 0.017, 0.04, 0.014). K-means clustering of expressed transcripts revealed three clusters of 40 patients: C_1, C_2 and C_3. The C_1 cluster exhibited the best PFS and objective response rate (ORR) to TKI therapy, with the highest proportion of DDR and VHL mutations. Further analysis of the tumor immune environment revealed that the C_1 cluster was enriched in activated CD8 T cells and effector CD4 T cells, whereas the C_2 cluster was enriched in eosinophils, mast cells and DC cells and, thus, in immunosuppressive cells.

Conclusions

We found that patients with mccRCC harboring DDR and VHL alterations were more likely to benefit from first-line VEGF-TKI systemic therapy than patients with wild-type disease. In addition, we found that a three-cluster prognostic model based on gene expression can predict PFS and ORR, which was well-matched with activated TIL infiltration.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13402-022-00691-8.

A Phase I/II Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Pazopanib and Pembrolizumab Combination Therapy in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

This study assessed whether antiangiogenic treatment may potentiate immune checkpoint blockade in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was an open-label, two-part, multicenter study involving treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Part 1 consisted of a phase I dose escalation and expansion of pazopanib plus pembrolizumab (combination therapy). Cohorts A and B received pazopanib in combination with pembrolizumab, whereas Cohort C received pazopanib monotherapy for 9 weeks before receiving the combination therapy. Part 2 was planned as a randomized three-arm study but was not conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, 42 patients were enrolled (10 each in Cohorts A and B, 22 in Cohort C). The maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the recommended phase II dose was not declared, as Cohort C was closed early because of safety concerns. The overall response rates were 60% and 20% in Cohorts A and B, respectively. In Cohort C, the overall response rates were 33%, 25%, and 0% in the combination therapy, pembrolizumab monotherapy, and pazopanib monotherapy groups, respectively. The median progression-free survival rates were 21.95 months and 41.40 months in Cohorts A and B, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) were observed in 90% of patients in Cohorts A and B. In Cohort C, the frequencies of grade 3 or 4 AEs, serious adverse events, and AEs leading to dose reduction were typically high in the combination therapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite preliminary signs of efficacy, significant hepatotoxicity was observed in Cohorts A and B. The sequential schedule of pazopanib followed by pazopanib plus pembrolizumab showed reduced hepatotoxicity; however, other safety issues emerged with this approach.

Balancing efficacy and quality of life measurements among metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) studies

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatments have rapidly evolved in the last few years. While vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition had previously been the mainstay of treatment for first-line advanced RCC therapy in the past decade, it has now rapidly changed into combination checkpoint inhibitors with or without VEGF TKIs, although there remains a role for VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy for patients with favorable-risk disease and for those with intermediate and poor-risk disease with the use of cabozantinib. Perspectives on the Quality-adjusted survival Time without Symptoms of disease or Toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis for the CABOSUN trial, as well as different aspects of efficacy regarding different first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic RCC are discussed herein.

Randomized trial assessing impact of probiotic supplementation on gut microbiome and clinical outcome from targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Studies suggest a link between the gut microbiome and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) outcomes, including evidence that mRCC patients possess a lower abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. compared to healthy adults. We sought to assess if a Bifidobacterium‐containing yogurt product could modulate the gut microbiome and clinical outcome from vascular endothelial growth factor‐tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF‐TKIs). mRCC patients initiating VEGF‐TKIs, regardless of the line of therapy, were randomized to probiotic‐supplemented (two 4 oz. servings of the probiotic yogurt product daily) or probiotic‐restricted arms. Stool samples were collected prior to therapy and at weeks 2, 3, 4, and 12. Microbiome composition was assessed using whole‐metagenome sequencing. A total of 20 patients were randomized. Bifidobacterium animalis, the active ingredient of the probiotic supplement, reached detectable levels in all patients in the probiotic‐supplemented arm versus two patients in the probiotic‐restricted arm. Clinical benefit rate was similar in probiotic‐supplemented versus probiotic‐restricted arms (70% vs. 80%, p = 0.606). Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size analysis of MetaPhIAn2 abundance data predicted 25 enriched species demonstrating an LDA score >3 in either clinical benefit or no clinical benefit. In patients with clinical benefit (vs. no clinical benefit), Barnesiella intestinihominis and Akkermansia muciniphila were significantly more abundant (p = 7.4 × 10⁻⁶ and p = 5.6 × 10⁻³, respectively). This is the first prospective randomized study demonstrating modulation of the gut microbiome with a probiotic in mRCC. Probiotic supplementation successfully increased the Bifidobacterium spp. levels. Analysis of longitudinal stool specimens identified an association between B. intestinihominis, A. muciniphila, and clinical benefit with therapy.

Trial Registration: NCT02944617

Significance of tumor microenvironment in acquiring resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor and recent advance of systemic treatment of clear cell renal cell carcinoma

The development of systemic therapies, including vascular endothelial growth factor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, represents a major breakthrough in the treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, inherent resistance is observed in some patients and acquired resistance commonly develops in many patients within several months of the initiation of systemic therapies. Since these treatments rarely cure patients, their aim is to suppress tumor progression and prolong survival. Therefore, the establishment of dependable criteria that predict responses and resistance to systemic therapies is clinically important, and the underlying molecular mechanisms also need to be elucidated for the future development of more effective therapies. We herein review recent advances in research on the molecular mechanisms underlying resistance, with a focus on morphological characteristics, tumor angiogenesis, and the tumor immune microenvironment in RCC and their relationships with VEGF-TKI treatments. Recent therapies using immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and newly developed VEGF-TKI also appear to be effective for advanced RCC, with stable and durable responses to ICI being observed in some RCC patients. These new drugs and their outcomes have been briefly described.

Clinical significance of programmed death-1 and programmed death-ligand 1 expression in the tumor microenvironment of clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Recently, immunotherapy based on blocking immune checkpoints with programmed death-1 (PD-1) or PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Abs has been introduced for the treatment of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), especially tumors resistant to vascular endothelial growth factor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs), but the significance of their expression in the tumor microenvironment is unclear. We investigated these immune checkpoint markers in tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (TIIC) in the tumor microenvironment of 100 untreated and 25 VEGF-TKI-treated primary ccRCC tissues. Upregulated expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 by TIIC, and PD-L1 by tumor cells was associated with the histological grade and unfavorable prognosis of RCC patients. High PD-1 and PD-L1 expression by TIIC was associated with a poorer response to VEGF-TKI, whereas PD-L1 expression by tumor cells did not affect the efficacy of the treatment. Furthermore, increased PD-1-positive TIIC and PD-L1-positive TIIC were observed in tumors treated with VEGF-TKIs compared with those in untreated tumors. Our data suggest that PD-1 and PD-L1 expression by TIIC in the tumor microenvironment is involved in treatment resistance, and that sequential therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors could be a promising therapeutic strategy for ccRCC resistant to VEGF-TKI treatment.

The Changing Landscape of Management of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Current Treatment Options and Future Directions. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2019;20:41. [PMID: 30937639 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-019-0638-1]

OPINION STATEMENT

For the practicing clinician, the dilemma becomes how most appropriate to sequence the aforementioned regimens. It is challenging to be dogmatic, as there are no comparative studies juxtaposing novel front-line options directly-all of the available studies utilize a comparator arm of sunitinib. With this in mind, the selection of front-line therapy with a patient with mRCC should involve a thorough discussion of both efficacy and safety of available options. The oncologist must also weigh their ability to manage complex immune-related adverse events that can emerge from checkpoint inhibitors, particularly with dual regimens such as nivolumab/ipilimumab. For the patient with good-risk disease, VEGF-directed therapies should remain a component of treatment. The data from CheckMate-214 does not support the use of nivolumab/ipilimumab in this setting, and in fact suggests superiority with the approach of VEGF-TKIs. Until regulatory decisions have been made around bevacizumab/atezolizumab and axitinib/avelumab, sunitinib and pazopanib remain options for patients with good-risk disease, although cabozantinib should be a consideration as well. Although the CABOSUN study did not include patients with good-risk disease, it is important to bear in mind that this was more of a pragmatic decision-inclusion of these patients in the original design could have potentially lengthened the extent of necessary follow-up. From a mechanistic standpoint, there is no reason to assume that cabozantinib would not also achieve superiority to sunitinib in patients with good-risk disease. For patients with intermediate- and poor-risk disease, cabozantinib and nivolumab/ipilimumab represent the only reasonable options thus far that have achieved regulatory approval. As previously noted, nivolumab/ipilimumab has proven benefit in this setting, but should be used only by the oncologist who has ready access to subspecialists who can aid in managing immune-related adverse events. Prompt recognition of colitis, hepatitis, and other sequelae from these therapies is critical, as these toxicities can be life-threatening. If such resources are not available, then cabozantinib should be considered. Cabozantinib should further be contemplated in the subset of patients with bony metastatic disease, where it appears to offer substantial control. Of course, it also represents an option for those individuals who have contraindications to immunotherapy, such as rheumatologic and autoimmune disorders.When combinations of VEGF-directed and immunotherapies are approved, the clinician will have an even more complicated dilemma. Regimens such as a bevacizumab/atezolizumab offer an exceptional safety profile, which may weigh heavily in frail patients who cannot tolerate the side effect profile associated with VEGF-TKIs.