International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Research Articles

Contemporary treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma is one of the mostcommon malignant tumors in Germany with an increasing incidence. Drug therapy is indicated in relapsed or metastatic disease. The article is based on the content of the recent guidelines and aselective literature search. Combination therapies based on acheckpoint inhibitor are the current standard in first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The median overall survival could thus be extended to > 50months. The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score is used for risk classification. When selecting asuitable combination therapy, it is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages for each individual patient. There is currently no standard for follow-up therapies. So far, combination therapies have not shown any significant advantage in second-line treatment. It is recommended to switch to asubstance that has not yet been used. Currently, one purely immuno-oncology combination and four combinations of one immune checkpoint inhibitor and one tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) are approved for first-line therapy in Germany. The added value of further intensification of therapy, in particular through triple combinations or further combination therapy in the second line, has not yet been proven.

P183 Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) vs Sunitinib (SUN) for first-line treatment of advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (aRCC): Efficacy across number of International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk factors with 8-year follow-up from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial

P183 Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) vs Sunitinib (SUN) for first-line treatment of advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (aRCC): Efficacy across number of International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk factors with 8-year follow-up from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial

Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma patients: real-world experience in Japan.

Combined treatment with lenvatinib and pembrolizumab is currently regarded as one of the standard first-line therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) patients. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of this combined regimen in treatment-naïve Japanese aRCC patients. This study included a total of 50 consecutive aRCC patients receiving combined lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in routine clinical practice in Japan, and comprehensively analyzed clinical outcomes of this treatment. Of these 50, 7 (14.0%), 23 (46.0%) and 20 (40.0%) were classified into favorable, intermediate and poor risk groups, respectively, according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) system. Responses to this combined therapy in the 50 patients were as follows: complete response, 7 (14.0%); partial response, 26 (52.0%); stable disease, 15 (30%) and progressive disease, 2 (4%); thus, the objective response rate (ORR) was 66%. ORRs in favorable, intermediate and poor risk groups were 57.1, 69.6 and 65.0%, respectively. During the observation period, disease progression and death occurred in 14 (28.0%) and 6 (12.0%) patients, respectively, and neither the median PFS nor OS was reached. Adverse events and those corresponding to grade ≥ 3 were observed in all (100%) and 33 (66.0%) patients, respectively. To our knowledge, this is the first study focusing on real-world outcomes of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab for treatment-naïve aRCC patients, showing that the efficacy and safety of this combined regimen are similar to those noted in randomized clinical trial.

Evaluation of prognostic factors for late recurrence in clear cell renal carcinoma: an institutional study.

Following nephrectomy with curative intent, a subset of patients diagnosed with non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (nmRCC) will present late recurrences, with metastatic relapses after 5 years from the surgical intervention. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of late recurrences in Romanian patients with nmRCC that have undergone surgery and to assess the clinicopathological characteristics prognostic for late-relapse RCC. This is a single-center, retrospective and observational study that analyzed patients with nmRCC with clear cell histology who underwent surgical resection of the primary tumor with curative intent. The patients included in the study were treated and further surveilled according to a personalized follow-up plan between January 2011 and December 2012 in The Oncology Institute "Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuţă", Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Study endpoints included median disease-free survival (DFS), median overall survival (OS), as well as evaluation of possible prognostic factors indicative of late relapse. In the study cohort (n=51), the median DFS was 46 months and median OS was 130 months. DFS was significantly correlated with the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score (p=0.04, HR=2.48; 95% CI [1.02, 6.01]), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (a higher NLR value was associated with a poorer DFS, p=0.035), tumor size (T4 tumors vs. T1 p<0.05, HR=9,81; 95% CI [2.65, 36.27]) and Fuhrman nuclear grade (Fuhrman grade 1 vs. Fuhrman grade 3 p<0.05, HR=4,16; 95% CI = [1.13,15.22]). Fifty one percent of the patients included experienced disease relapse. From this subgroup, a significant percentage of 42% patients presented disease recurrence after 60 months from nephrectomy. OS was correlated to IMDC score (p=0.049, HR=2.36; 95% CI [1, 5.58]) and Fuhrman nuclear grade (Fuhrman grade 1 vs. Fuhrman grade 3 p<0.05, HR=3,97; 95% CI [1.08, 14.54]). The results of this study support the previously presented biological behavior of RCC, demonstrating that late recurrences in RCC are not uncommon occurrences and patients with localized RCC should be followed up for a longer interval after the surgery for the primary tumor. In addition, the study strengthens the data supporting certain biomarkers as valuable prognostic factors determining survival outcomes of patients with RCC.

Tivozanib plus nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma following an immune checkpoint inhibitor: results of the phase 3 TiNivo-2 Study

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are cornerstones of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, optimal treatment sequencing after progression is unknown. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes of tivozanib-nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed following one or two lines of therapy in the post-ICI setting. TiNivo-2 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 190 sites across 16 countries, in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and progression during or after one to two previous lines of therapy (including one ICI) were randomised 1:1 to tivozanib (0·89 mg per day, orally) plus nivolumab (480 mg every 4 weeks, intravenously) or tivozanib (1·34 mg per day, orally). Randomisation was stratified by immediate previous therapy (ICI or non-ICI) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to first documentation of objective progressive disease according to RECIST 1·1 or death from any cause, whichever came first, by independent radiology review. Efficacy was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received one or more doses of the study drug. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04987203) and is active and not recruiting. From Nov 4, 2021, to June 16, 2023, 343 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib-nivolumab (n=171) or tivozanib monotherapy (n=172). Median follow-up was 12·0 months. Median PFS was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-7·4) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 7·4 months (5·6-9·2) with tivozanib monotherapy (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·84-1·43; p=0·49). Among those with an ICI as their immediate previous therapy (n=244), median PFS was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6-9·6) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 9·2 months (7·4-10·0) with tivozanib monotherapy. With non-ICIs as the most recent therapy, lower median PFS was observed, with no difference between groups (tivozanib-nivolumab 3·7 months [95% CI 2·7-5·4] and with tivozanib monotherapy 3·7 months [1·9-7·2]). Serious adverse events occurred in 54 (32%) of 168 patients receiving tivozanib-nivolumab and 64 (37%) of 171 patients receiving tivozanib monotherapy. One (<1%) treatment-related death occurred (tivozanib group). These data further support that ICI rechallenge should be discouraged in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, these data suggest that tivozanib monotherapy has efficacy in the post-ICI setting. Aveo Pharmaceuticals.

Comparison of the efficacy of sunitinib and pazopanib in patients with advanced non-clear renal cell carcinoma

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC) is a highly heterogeneous disease group, accounting for approximately 25% of all RCC cases. Due to its rarity and especially heterogeneity, phase III trial data is limited and treatment options generally follow those of clear cell RCC. In the literature, there exists a number of studies with sunitinib, cabozantinib, and everolimus, but data on the efficacy of pazopanib are limited. Our aim in this study was to compare the efficacy of pazopanib and sunitinib, in a multicenter retrospective cohort of non-ccRCC patients. Our study included patients diagnosed with non-ccRCC who received pazopanib or sunitinib treatment as first-line therapy from 22 tertiary hospitals. We compared the progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and response rates of pazopanib and sunitinib treatments. Additionally, we investigated prognostic factors in non-ccRCC. PFS and response rates of sunitinib and pazopanib were found to be similar, while a numerical difference was observed in OS. Being 65 years and older, being in the intermediate or poor risk group according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium, having liver metastases, presence of a sarcomatoid component, and having de novo metastatic disease were found to be significantly associated with shorter PFS. Pazopanib treatment appears to have similar efficacy in the treatment of non-ccRCC compared to sunitinib. Though randomized controlled trials are lacking and will probably be never be available, we suggest that pazopanib could be a preferred agent like sunitinib and cabozantinib.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in metastatic nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with immuno-oncology combination therapy.

Metastatic nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) is a heterogeneous disease with poor prognosis. The clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapy for nccRCC are not well known. This study analyzed patients with metastatic nccRCC treated with IO combination therapy. We retrospectively collected data from 447 patients with metastatic RCC treated with IO-based combination therapy as first-line treatment between September 2018 and July 2023 in a Japanese multicenter study. The primary endpoints were objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), comparing groups treated with IO-IO and IO-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapies. Seventy-five patients with metastatic nccRCC were eligible for analysis: 39 were classified into the IO-IO group and 36 into the IO-TKI group. Median PFS was 5.4months (95% CI: 1.6-9.1) for the IO-IO group and 5.6 (95% CI: 3.4-12.0) for the IO + TKI group. Median OS was 24.2months (95% CI: 7.5-NA) for the IO-IO group and 23.4 (95% CI: 18.8-NA) for the IO + TKI group, with no significant difference. In univariate analysis, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium scores, Karnofsky performance status, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and the presence of liver metastases were significantly associated with OS, whereas in multivariate analysis, only the presence of liver metastases was significantly associated with OS (P = .035). There was no significant difference in OS or PFS between IO-IO and IO-TKI combination therapy as first-line treatment for patients with nccRCC. Liver metastasis is a poor prognostic factor for such patients.

68 Use of artificial intelligence to derive International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) elements from unstructured medical records

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence technologies invoking large language models (LLMs) may be able to automate data collection for the IMDC registry, an otherwise labor-intensive process. We evaluate a proprietary tool (HopeLLM) in expediting data abstraction. Methods We utilized a City of Hope-managed IMDC data set that includes patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. From this data set, we randomly selected patients who initiated care after 2018 and had sufficient treatment-related information within the Epic electronic health record system to determine HopeLLM performance. Patient identification numbers were manually extracted to prompt HopeLLM for data abstraction. We compared treatment start and end dates between manually registered information and HopeLLM estimations. The difference ratio in months was compared between the two sources. Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient was performed to quantify the rate of agreement between both sources. Results Among 513 records, 91 patients were randomly selected. A total of 164 lines of treatment were recorded manually in the registry, and 146 were recorded by HopeLLM. A total of 75 lines of treatment were unique to the registry, while 42 were unique to HopeLLM. There were 117 unmatched lines of treatment between the registry and HopeLLM, which were not considered for concordance analysis. We recorded a difference (median (IQR)) of 0 mos (0-0.09 mos) for start dates between the registry and HopeLLM, with a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.99 (95%CI 0.99-0.99). We recorded a difference of 2.15 mos (0.46-5.54 mos) for end dates between the registry and HopeLLM, with a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.92 (95%CI 0.88-0.95). Conclusions HopeLLM can streamline data abstraction from unstructured medical records onto the IMDC database, as it accurately predicts treatment start and end dates for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

8 Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: 8-year follow-up with analyses in favorable risk patients from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial

Abstract Background First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has provided substantial long-term survival benefits over sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in CheckMate 214. With a median follow-up of 8 years, the longest follow-up to date for any phase 3 trial of immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in patients with aRCC, we report survival, response per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and safety in all randomized patients (intent-to-treat [ITT] population) and in patients with International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable risk. Methods Patients with clear cell aRCC were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN 50 mg once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. Key study endpoints included overall survival (OS), IRRC-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (primary), ITT (secondary), and favorable-risk (exploratory) patients. Cancer-specific survival was evaluated in ITT patients by censoring all causes of death other than RCC. Post hoc exploratory analyses in patients with favorable risk were performed. Results With 8 years (99.1 months) median follow-up, OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN remained superior in ITT patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; Table). The HR for PFS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.88. ORR was higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (Table), with more complete responses (12% vs 3%) and a longer median duration of response (DOR) in the combination arm versus SUN. In patients with favorable risk, OS benefits were similar between arms (HR, 0.82; Table). The HR for PFS favored SUN (HR, 1.76). ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, yet more patients achieved complete responses (13% vs 6%, respectively) and median DOR was longer with NIVO+IPI. Median cancer-specific survival (95% CI) in ITT patients was 73.7 (62.8-91.2) months with NIVO+IPI versus 45.1 (37.8-53.3) months with SUN (HR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.59-0.82). In exploratory post hoc analyses of patients with favorable risk, 75/125 (60.0%) patients in the NIVO+IPI arm and 85/124 (68.5%) patients in the SUN arm died over 8 years of follow-up. Of these patients, 31 in the NIVO+IPI arm and 27 in the SUN arm died within 3 years of randomization; the primary reason for death was disease in either arm (71.0% and 85.2%, respectively). Furthermore, among 27 patients in the NIVO+IPI arm with favorable risk who died after disease progression within 3 years, 12 patients did not receive second-line systemic therapy. Beyond 3 years, only 2 of 43 patients who died after disease progression did not receive subsequent systemic therapy. Among all treated patients, incidence of any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events remained largely unchanged. No new drug-related deaths occurred in either arm since the previous database lock. Table Conclusions With a median follow-up up of 8 years, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate sustained survival and more durable response benefits versus SUN in the ITT population, including a further reduction in the risk of death with NIVO+IPI as measured by cancer-specific survival. Long-term exploratory data in patients with favorable risk have shown a steady improvement in the HR for OS, and a marked improvement in median DOR and complete response rates with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, thus contributing to the survival and response benefits reported in the ITT population. Furthermore, the disproportionate number of patients with favorable risk who died within 3 years of randomization after documented progression without receiving subsequent therapy may have affected the HR for OS in this patient population early on. NIVO+IPI offers the potential for positive long-term outcomes, regardless of IMDC risk, and with no emergence of new safety signals.

Treatment-free survival and partitioned survival analysis of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib: 5-year update of CheckMate 214

BackgroundImmunotherapy can be associated with prolonged disease control even after cessation of treatment without the need for further cancer-directed therapy. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) can also persist after discontinuation of...

Which factors help to determine the long-term response to first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A Turkish multi-centre study.

Many developing countries lack access to recommended first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) or ICI-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations. As a result, predictive markers are necessary to identify patients who may benefit from single-agent TKIs for long-term response. This study aims to identify such parameters. This was a multi-centre, retrospective study of patients with mRCC who were undergoing first-line treatment with sunitinib or pazopanib. Patients who had been diagnosed with mRCC and had not experienced disease progression for 36 months or more were deemed to have achieved a long-term response. Predictive clinical and pathological characteristics of patients who did not experience long-term disease progression were investigated. A total of 320 patients from four hospitals were included in the study. The median age of the patients was 60 years (range 20-89 years). According to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk classification, 109 patients were classified as having favourable risk and 211 were in the intermediate-poor risk group. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for all patients were 12.5 months and 76.4 months, respectively. In the long-term responder's group, the median PFS was 78.4 months. Among all patients, prior nephrectomy, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) <1, and the absence of brain metastasis were predictive factors for long-term response. For patients in the favourable risk group, the lack of brain metastasis was a predictor of long-term response. In the intermediate-poor risk group, prior nephrectomy and ECOG PS <1 were predictive factors for long-term response. Some individuals with mRCC may experience a durable response to TKIs. The likelihood of a long-term response can be determined by factors such as nephrectomy, ECOG PS < 1, and the absence of brain metastases.

First-Line Treatments and Management of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients: An Italian Interdisciplinary Uro-Oncologic Group Algorithm.

The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has undergone significant transformations in recent years. The introduction of novel combination therapies involving tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and immune checkpoint inhibitors has resulted in improved oncological outcomes compared to traditional TKI monotherapy. In this evolving paradigm, the pivotal role of the multidisciplinary tumor board is underscored, particularly in shaping the therapeutic trajectory for patients eligible for locoregional interventions like cytoreductive nephrectomy and metastasectomy. In cases where systemic treatment is deemed appropriate, the absence of direct comparisons among the various combination therapies complicates the selection of a first-line approach. The clinician is faced with the challenge of making decisions based on patient-specific factors such as performance status, risk classification according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium, comorbidities, and disease characteristics, including the number and location of metastases and tumor histology. Considering these concerns, we propose, as a member of a Tuscany Interdisciplinary Uro-Oncologic Group, an algorithm to streamline the decision-making process for mRCC patients, offering guidance to clinicians in their day-to-day clinical practice.

First-Line Immune Combination Therapies for Nonclear Cell Versus Clear Cell Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Multicenter Data From Germany

IntroductionThe aim was to compare treatment outcomes of clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (ccmRCC) versus non-ccmRCC (nccmRCC) patients who received first-line immune combination therapies. Materials and MethodsWithin our retrospective multi-institutional consecutive database of eight tertiary-care centers, we identified mRCC patients treated with first-line immune combination therapies between 11/2017 and 12/2022. Using log-rank analysis and multivariable Cox regression, we tested for differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of nccmRCC versus ccmRCC patients. Covariables consisted of age at diagnosis, sex, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and sarcomatoid feature. ResultsOf 289 study patients, 39 (13%) patients harbored nccmRCC. Median OS was 37 months versus not reached for ccmRCC versus nccmRCC patients (P = .6). Median PFS was 13 versus 15 months (P = .9). Multivariable Cox regression models did not identify nccmRCC as an independent predictor of higher overall mortality in mRCC patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.23; P = .6) or a higher progression rate (HR: 1.0; P = 1.0). ConclusionIn our real-world multi-institutional study, no differences in OS and PFS between ccmRCC and nccmRCC patients receiving first-line immune combination treatment were observed, even after adjustment for important patient and tumor characteristics. More prospective trials in nccmRCC patients are needed.

Impact of smoking status on clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor-based regimens.

Current tobacco smoking is independently associated with decreased overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with targeted monotherapy (VEGF-TKI). Herein, we assess the influence of smoking status on the outcomes of patients with mRCC treated with the current first-line standard of care of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens. Real-world data from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were collected retrospectively. Patients with mRCC who received either dual ICI therapy or ICI with VEGF-TKI in the first-line setting were included and were categorized as current, former, or nonsmokers. The primary outcomes were OS, time to treatment failure (TTF), and objective response rate (ORR). OS and TTF were compared between groups using the log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression models. ORR was assessed between the 3 groups using a multivariable logistic regression model. A total of 989 eligible patients were included in the analysis, with 438 (44.3%) nonsmokers, 415 (42%) former, and 136 (13.7%) current smokers. Former smokers were older and included more males, while other baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Median follow-up for OS was 21.2 months. In the univariate analysis, a significant difference between groups was observed for OS (P = .027) but not for TTF (P = .9), with current smokers having the worse 2-year OS rate (62.8% vs 70.8% and 73.1% in never and former smokers, respectively). After adjusting for potential confounders, no significant differences in OS or TTF were observed among the 3 groups. However, former smokers demonstrated a higher ORR compared to never smokers (OR 1.45, P = .02). Smoking status does not appear to independently influence the clinical outcomes to first-line ICI-based regimens in patients with mRCC. Nonetheless, patient counseling on tobacco cessation remains a crucial aspect of managing patients with mRCC, as it significantly reduces all-cause mortality.

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

BackgroundPeritoneal 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 MethodsBaseline 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. ResultsWe 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%). ConclusionWe 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.

Survival by depth of response and efficacy by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Subgroup with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: analysis of the phase 3 randomized CLEAR study

Background: The extent of tumor shrinkage has been deemed a predictor of survival for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a disease with historically poor survival.Objective: To perform an exploratory analysis of overall survival (OS) by tumor response by 6 mo, and to assess the efficacy and survival outcomes in specific subgroups.Design, setting, and participants: CLEAR was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial of first-line treatment of advanced clear cell RCC.Intervention: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to lenvatinib 20mg orally daily with pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 wk, lenvatinib plus everolimus (not included in this analysis), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily for 4 wk on treatment/2 wk of no treatment.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Landmark analyses were conducted to assess the association of OS with tumor shrinkage and progressive disease status by 6 mo. Progression-free survival, duration of response, and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk subgroup and by the presence of target kidney lesions. Efficacy was assessed by an independent review committee as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.Results and limitations: Landmark analyses by tumor shrinkage showed that patients enrolled to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm with a confirmed complete response or &gt;75 % target-lesion reduction by 6 mo had a 24-mo OS probability of 91.7 %. A landmark analysis by disease progression showed that patients with no progression by 6 mo had lower probabilities of death in both arms. Patients with an IMDC risk classification of intermediate/poor had longer median progression-free survival (22.1 vs 5.9 mo) and a higher ORR (72.4 % vs 28.8 %) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib. Similarly, results favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in IMDC-favorable patients and those with/without target kidney lesions. Limitations of the study are that results were exploratory and not powered/stratified.Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed improved efficacy versus sunitinib for patients with advanced RCC; landmark analyses showed that tumor response by 6 mo correlated with longer OS.Patient summary: In this report of the CLEAR trial, we explored the survival of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma by assessing how well they initially responded to treatment. We also explored how certain groups of patients responded to treatment overall. Patients were assigned to cycles of either lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 wk or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 wk (followed by a 2-wk break). Patients who either had a ‘‘complete response’’ or had their tumors shrunk by &gt;75 % within 6 mo after starting treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab had better survival than those with less tumor reduction by 6 mo. Additionally, patients who had more severe disease (as per the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) at the start of study treatment survived for longer without disease progression with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib.

Natural history of bone-only metastasis in renal cell carcinoma

BackgroundBone metastasis (BM) is considered a poor prognostic factor of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Confusion exists regarding how to deal with RCC patients with bone-only metastasis. Patients and MethodsThe clinical data of consecutive RCC patients with bone-only metastasis at Peking University Cancer Hospital between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. ResultsFifty-four eligible patients were screened from an RCC database of 1,878 metastatic patients. After a median follow-up of 43.6 m, 61.1% of the patients were presented with progression of prior BM or new BM. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 16.2 m (95%CI: 11.4–21.0) and 65.2 m, respectively. For the 30 patients with oligo-metastasis (≤3 loci) and 24 ones with multiple-metastasis (>3 loci), the median OS was not reached and 42.0m (95%CI: 12.7–71.2) with statistical difference (P < 0.001). In the oligo-metastasis group, the median PFS of the 15 patients treated with local therapy and of the 13 patients treated with systemic therapy was 14.2 m (95%CI: 5.3–23.3) and 18.0 m (95%CI:15.4–20.6), respectively. In the multiple-metastasis group, the median PFS and OS of the 18 patients treated with systemic therapy was 16.6 m (95%CI: 7.5–25.7) and 63.9 m (95%CI: 21.8–106.0), respectively. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis showed that the number of metastatic sites (oligo/multiple) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score, RCC pathological subtype were significantly associated with prognosis (P < 0.05). ConclusionRCC patients with bone-only metastases have a favorable prognosis. The number of metastatic sites, IMDC, RCC pathological subtype could serve as survival predictors, which might provide clue of treatment modality.

Time to strategy failure and treatment beyond progression in pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving nivolumab: post-hoc analysis of the Meet-URO 15 study.

Immunotherapies exhibit peculiar cancer response patterns in contrast to chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Some patients experience disease response after initial progression or durable responses after treatment interruption. In clinical practice, immune checkpoint inhibitors may be continued after radiological progression if clinical benefit is observed. As a result, estimating progression-free survival (PFS) based on the first disease progression may not accurately reflect the actual benefit of immunotherapy. The Meet-URO 15 study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 571 pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. Time to strategy failure (TSF) was defined as the interval from the start of immunotherapy to definitive disease progression or death. This post-hoc analysis compared TSF to PFS and assess the response and survival outcomes between patients treatated beyond progression (TBP) and non-TBP. Moreover, we evaluated the prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score versus the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score based on TSF and PFS. Overall, 571 mRCC patients were included in the analysis. Median TSF was 8.6 months (95% CI: 7.0 - 10.1), while mPFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 5.7 - 8.5). TBP patients (N = 93) had significantly longer TSF (16.3 vs 5.5 months; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (34.8 vs 17.9 months; p < 0.001) but similar PFS compared to non-TBP patients. In TBP patients, a median delay of 9.6 months (range: 6.7-16.3) from the first to the definitive disease progression was observed, whereas non-TBP patients had overlapped median TSF and PFS (5.5 months). Moreover, TBP patients had a trend toward a higher overall response rate (33.3% vs 24.3%; p = 0.075) and disease control rate (61.3% vs 55.5%; p = 0.31). Finally, in the whole population the Meet-URO score outperformed the IMDC score in predicting both TSF (c-index: 0.63 vs 0.59) and PFS (0.62 vs 0.59). We found a 2-month difference between mTSF and mPFS in mRCC patients receiving nivolumab. However, TBP patients had better outcomes, including significantly longer TSF and OS than non-TBP patients. The Meet-URO score is a reliable predictor of TSF and PFS.

Assessing the effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib and everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: insights from the RELIEVE study's analysis of heavily pretreated patients.

The treatment of heavily pretreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) represents an unmet medical need and is still challenging. The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of the lenvatinib plus everolimus combination and the secondary objective was the toxicity profile of this combination. We conducted a longitudinal retrospective study examining mRCC patients pre-treated with one or more lines of therapy among different cancer centers in Italy. The study included patients who received the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus as either a second-line treatment or beyond. We assessed progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), and toxicity profile. In addition, we explored the potential relationship between treatment effectiveness and clinical and laboratory parameters. In all, 33 patients were assessed, the median age was 60 years, 57% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1-2 and. 63% received ⩾ 3 prior lines of therapy. 62% were 'intermediate risk' according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium and 30% were 'poor risk'. The RR was 42% (no complete response), 18% stable disease. Median OS was 11.2 months (95% CI 6.8-19.9), median PFS was 6.7 months (95% CI 0.6-30.8), and median TTF was 6.7 months (95% CI 4.8-16.6). A shorter OS was significantly associated with lymph node metastases (p = 0.043, 95% CI), neutrophils/ lymphocytes ratio (NLR) ⩾ 3 (p = 0.007), hemoglobin/red cell distribution width ratio cutoff value <0.7 was significant (p = 0.03) while a shorter PFS was associated with lung (p = 0.048) and brain metastases (p = 0.023). The most frequent G1 toxicity was diarrhea (24%), G2 was fatigue (30%), and hypertension and skin toxicity (6%) for G3. Our findings suggest a clinically relevant effectiveness of lenvatinib plus everolimus combination with an acceptable toxicity profile for heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P+L) versus alternative therapies in first-line (1L) advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) by IMDC risk status: A network meta-analysis (NMA).

421 Background: The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk criteria is a widely used prognostic model in advanced RCC. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P+L) demonstrated a significant improvement in ORR, PFS, and OS versus sunitinib in subjects with cc aRCC in the KEYNOTE-581/CLEAR trial. This NMA indirectly compared the efficacy of P+L to other therapies in 1L aRCC subjects within IMDC risk groups using data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify systemic therapies in 1L aRCC. Trials reporting results for IMDC favorable risk and/or intermediate+poor risk groups were included. A Bayesian NMA with fixed-effect models was performed to indirectly compare P+L to alternate therapies using sunitinib as the common comparator. Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS were calculated with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The NMAs assuming constant hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS were performed for all IMDC risk group categories. For the proportion of patients experiencing response, a binomial likelihood and logit link were used, and relative effects were expressed as odds ratios (OR). Results: For the IMDC favorable risk subgroup, P+L demonstrated statistically significant increase in ORR compared to nivolumab + ipilimumab (N+I) (OR=5.35; 95% CrI: 2.59, 11.41) and nivolumab (OR=8.41; 95% CrI: 1.84, 43.77). For PFS, P+L resulted in a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared to N+I (HR=0.31, 95% CrI: 0.17-0.56). For OS, no significant differences were observed compared to other alternatives in the network. For the IMDC intermediate+poor risk subgroup, P+L demonstrated statistically significant increase in ORR compared to nivolumab + cabozantinib (N+C) (OR=1.77; 95% CrI: 1.02, 3.10), N+I (OR=3.15; 95% CrI: 1.94, 5.10), and nivolumab + ipilimumab + cabozantinib (N+I+C) (OR=2.34; 95% CrI: 1.34, 4.12), pembrolizumab + axitinib (P+A) (OR=2.65; 95% CrI: 1.57, 4.44) and nivolumab (OR=4.68; 95% CrI: 1.84, 12.02). For PFS, P+L resulted in a statistically significant improvement compared to N+I (HR=0.59; 95% CrI: 0.41, 0.84) (P+A) (HR=0.64; 95% CrI: 0.44, 0.93), and avelumab + axitinib (A+A) (HR=0.65; 95% CrI: 0.46, 0.93). For OS, no significant differences were observed compared to other alternatives in the network. Conclusions: PFS analysis favored P+L over all alternative therapies in the network in favorable or intermediate+poor IMDC risk groups. ORR analysis favored P+L over all alternative therapies in the network in intermediate+poor IMDC risk groups. No significant difference in OS was observed between P+L and other alternative therapies in the network.