Poor-risk Metastatic Renal Cell Research Articles

Phase II Trial of Intermittent Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Front-line Ipilimumab and Nivolumab

IntroductionThe combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab is approved for patients with treatment-naïve, intermediate-, and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but duration of therapy and safety/efficacy of reinduction at progression is unknown. A phase II trial of intermittent ipilimumab/nivolumab with reinduction at progression was conducted (NCT03126331). Patients and MethodsPatients with treatment-naïve mRCC were treated with induction ipilimumab/nivolumab followed by up to 24 weeks of maintenance nivolumab. Patients who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) were eligible for inclusion and entered a treatment-free observation period. Patients were restaged every 12 weeks. Patients with no disease progression (PD) remained off therapy. Upon PD, patients were re-challenged with 2 doses of ipilimumab/nivolumab every 3 weeks. Study objectives were to estimate success rate of observation in patients who achieve a CR/PR, and to assess toxicity in patients undergoing reinduction. The study accrued slower than expected and was closed prior to the anticipated accrual goal of 20 patients. ResultsNine patients were included; 89% male, median age 57, 67% clear-cell histology, and 78% intermediate-risk by IMDC criteria. Response to ipilimumab/nivolumab followed by nivolumab maintenance prior to enrollment was 33% CR and 67% PR. Most (78%) patients have remained off therapy, with a median treatment-free interval (TFI) of 34.3 months (range, 8.7-41.8). Two patients had PD off therapy and received 2 cycles of reinduction ipilimumab and nivolumab. No grade 3 or greater toxicities occurred with reinduction. Both patients developed PD at their first scans after reinduction. ConclusionThis prospective study demonstrates that patients with a radiographic response to ipilimumab/nivolumab can have prolonged treatment-free intervals. Further studies of de-escalation strategies are warranted.Trial Registration: NCT03126331 [Date of registration 4/27/2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03126331].

Comparative effectiveness of first-line (1L) ipilimumab plus nivolumab (Ipi + Nivo) versus immune checkpoint inhibitors + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ICI + TKI) in patients (pts) with intermediate or poor (I/P) risk metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC).

Comparative effectiveness of first-line (1L) ipilimumab plus nivolumab (Ipi + Nivo) versus immune checkpoint inhibitors + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ICI + TKI) in patients (pts) with intermediate or poor (I/P) risk metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC).

First-line immunotherapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an updated network meta-analysis including triplet therapy.

To compare the differential efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combined therapies among patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), as recently, the efficacy of triplet therapy comprising nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib has been published. Three databases were searched in December 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysing oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC treated with first-line ICI-based combined therapies. We performed network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORRs), in patients with intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC; we also assessed treatment-related adverse events. Overall, seven RCTs were included in the meta-analyses and NMAs. Treatment ranking analysis revealed that pembrolizumab + lenvatinib (99%) had the highest likelihood of improved PFS, followed by nivolumab + cabozantinib (79%), and nivolumab + ipilimumab + cabozantinib (77%). Notably, compared to nivolumab + cabozantinib, adding ipilimumab to nivolumab + cabozantinib did not improve PFS (hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.43). Regarding ORRs, treatment ranking analysis also revealed that pembrolizumab + lenvatinib had the highest likelihood of providing better ORRs (99.7%). The likelihoods of improved PFS and ORRs of pembrolizumab + lenvatinib were true in both International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. Our analyses confirmed the robust efficacy of pembrolizumab + lenvatinib as first-line treatment for patients with intermediate or poor IMDC risk mRCC. Triplet therapy did not result in superior efficacy. Considering both toxicity and the lack of mature overall survival data, triplet therapy should only be considered in selected patients.

Optimal timing of delayed cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma during the immunotherapy era.

403 Background: The CARMENA study found no survival benefit from cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in poor-risk metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients treated with first line Sunitinib. Although retrospective studies have reported survival benefits with CN following immunotherapy (IO)-based therapy, the timing remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the ideal timing of CN following IO using the National Cancer Database. Methods: 783 patients with de novo mRCC were diagnosed between 2016 and 2020 who received upfront systemic therapy and underwent CN, 343 patients met our criteria. Patients were categorized into four groups based on the timing of nephrectomy: CN ≤3 months (Group A), 4 to 6 months (Group B), 7 to 9 months (Group C) and ≥ 10 months (Group D) following the initiation of IO-based therapy. Descriptive analysis was performed to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics. Follow up time was measured from the date of surgery to reduce bias. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to analyze survival curves, and a multivariable cox regression analysis was performed to explore associations between timing and survival. Results: 343 patients who received upfront IO -based therapy were divided into four groups: 104 (30%) in A, 114 (33%) in B, 74 (22%) in C and 51 (15%) in D. 71%were male, white (90%), age 40 – 64 (62%), comorbidity index 0 (70%), clear cell histology (69%), sarcomatoid (14%). 54% were treated in academia, 57% had bone metastasis, 50% had lung, 11% had liver, and 7% had brain metastases. 66% received only IO, and 34% received IO + TKI. No significant association between CN timing and survival observed in multivariate cox regression model. (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.5- 1.7, p = 0.84). Compared to group A, the HR were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.27; p=0.78), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.13; p=0.19), and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.20; p=0.17) respectively for groups B, C and D. Conclusions: Our study did not find significant survival improvement with an optimal timing of CN following IO-based therapy, while HRs were reduced after 6 months of delay, though insignificant. This could be due to the small sample size or other confounders.

Genomic and Transcriptomic Characteristics of Tumors of Patients with Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Clinically Benefiting from First-Line Treatment with Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab

Background: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab is approved as a first-line treatment for intermediate or poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, ∼35% of patients progress within six months on ipilimumab plus nivolumab, and no validated genomic biomarkers predict the benefit. In this study, we explore the genomic and transcriptomic differences among patients with clear cell mRCC patients who either did or did not experience clinical benefit from first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy. Method: Patients with clear cell mRCC intermediate or poor IMDC risk scores, with available tumor whole exome with/without transcriptome sequencing before starting systemic therapy were included. Patients who developed a complete response, partial response, or stable disease for at least six months after initiating treatment were categorized into the ‘clinical benefit’ group, whereas the rest were classified as ‘no clinical benefit.’ Genomic alteration frequencies between the groups were assessed with a chi-square test. Differentially expressed genes and gene sets were identified via DeSeq2 and GSEA v4.2.3, respectively. Result: 53 patients with clear cell mRCC (37 clinical benefit and 16 no clinical benefit) were eligible and included. No significant difference was found in the genomic alteration frequencies between these groups. Baseline tumor transcriptomic data were available for 14 patients (9 clinical benefit and 5 no clinical benefit). The apical surface and pathways downregulated by KRAS signaling were enriched in the clinical benefit group, whereas inflammatory pathways were enriched in the no clinical benefit group. Conclusion: These findings suggest that tumor specific gene expression as assessed by RNA sequencing could serve as a potential biomarker of response to ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy.

Tailored immunotherapy approach with nivolumab with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab as immunotherapeutic boost in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (TITAN-RCC): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is approved as first-line regimen for intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and nivolumab monotherapy as second-line therapy for all risk groups. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination as an immunotherapeutic boost after no response to nivolumab monotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk and poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma. TITAN-RCC is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, done at 28 hospitals and cancer centres across Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk or poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were formerly untreated (first-line population) or pretreated with one previous systemic therapy (anti-angiogenic or temsirolimus; second-line population) were eligible. Patients had to have a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70 and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). Patients started with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks. On early progressive disease (week 8) or non-response at week 16, patients received two or four doses of intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) boosts (once every 3 weeks), whereas responders continued with intravenous nivolumab (240 mg, once every 2 weeks), but could receive two to four boost doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for subsequent progressive disease. The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study medication; safety was also assessed in this population. An objective response rate of more than 25% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show improvement, on the basis of results from the pivotal phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02917772, and is complete. Between Oct 28, 2016, and Nov 30, 2018, 207 patients were enrolled and all received nivolumab induction (109 patients in the first-line group; 98 patients in the second-line group). 60 (29%) of 207 patients were female and 147 (71%) were male. 147 (71%) of 207 patients had intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma and 51 (25%) had poor-risk disease. After median follow-up of 27·6 months (IQR 10·5-34·8), 39 (36%, 90% CI 28-44; p=0·0080) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 31 (32%, 24-40; p=0·083) of 98 patients in the second-line group had a confirmed objective response for nivolumab with and without nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Confirmed response to nivolumab at week 8 or 16 was observed in 31 (28%) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 18 (18%) of 98 patients in the second-line group. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (reported in ≥5% of patients) were increased lipase (15 [7%] of 207 patients), colitis (13 [6%]), and diarrhoea (13 [6%]). Three deaths were reported that were deemed to be treatment-related: one due to possible ischaemic stroke, one due to respiratory failure, and one due to pneumonia. In treatment-naive patients, nivolumab induction with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts significantly improved the objective response rate compared with that reported for nivolumab monotherapy in the CheckMate-025 trial. However, overall efficacy seemed inferior when compared with approved upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For second-line treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab could be a rescue strategy on progression with approved nivolumab monotherapy. Bristol Myers Squibb.

Sunitinib Versus Pazopanib as Initial Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma of Intermediate and Poor-Risk Characteristics: Real-World, a Single-Center

<i>Background</i>: Sunitinib and pazopanib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) used as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this study, our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of sunitinib or pazopanib in patients with intermediate or poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma. <i>Methods</i>: A total of 60 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma were retrospectively evaluated between January 2014 and December 2020. Survival analyzes were performed with the Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. <i>Results</i>: Forty-six (76.7%) patients were male. Of the patients who received sunitinib, 22 patients (57.9%) were in the intermediate risk group, while 16 patients (42.1%) were in the poor risk group. Among patients receiving pazopanib, 14 patients (63.6%) were in the intermediate-risk group, while 8 patients (36.4%) were in the poor-risk group. There were no significant difference in the intermediate risk group of patients in terms of median progression-free survival between sunitinib and pazopanib (p=0.742). No significant differences were found in terms of progression-free survival in the high-risk group of patients (p=0.254). There were no significant differences in overall survival in the intermediate-risk group of patients receiving sunitinib or pazopanib (p = 0.377). There were no significant differences in terms of overall survival in the high-risk patient group receiving sunitinib or pazopanib (p = 0.3777). <i>Conclusions:</i> There were no significant difference in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival between the intermediate and poor-risk patient groups receiving pazopanib or sunitinib.

Phase II trial of intermittent therapy in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with front-line ipilimumab and nivolumab (Ipi/Nivo).

672 Background: The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab (Ipi/Nivo) is approved for patients (pts) with treatment-naïve, intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but duration of therapy and safety/efficacy of re-induction at progression is unknown. A phase II trial of intermittent Ipi/Nivo with re-induction at progression was conducted (NCT03126331). Methods: Patients with treatment-naïve mRCC were treated with induction Ipi/Nivo followed by up to 24 weeks (+/- 8 weeks) of maintenance Nivo. Pts who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) were eligible for inclusion and entered a treatment-free observation period. Pts were restaged every 12 weeks. Pts with no disease progression (PD) remained off therapy. Upon PD, pts were re-challenged with 2 doses of Ipi/Nivo every 3 weeks, with 1 or 2 more doses at physician discretion. The study objectives were to estimate success rate of observation in pts who achieve a CR/PR (defined by 50% of CR/PR pts sustaining a treatment-free interval of at least 9 months), and to assess toxicity in pts undergoing re-induction. The study was closed early given poor accrual in the rapidly changing mRCC treatment landscape. Results: Nine pts were included; 89% male, median age 57, 78% prior nephrectomy, 67% clear-cell histology, all had KPS ≥ 80%, and 78% were intermediate-risk by IMDC criteria. All pts had 4 doses of induction Ipi/Nivo. Response to Ipi/Nivo and Nivo maintenance prior to enrollment was 33% CR and 67% PR. Most (78%) pts patients have remained off therapy, with a median treatment-free interval (TFI) of 34.3 months (range, 8.7-41.8). The success rate of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.40-0.97) exceeded the pre-specified threshold of 50%. Two pts had PD off therapy (3 and 8 months after therapy cessation; both with best initial response of PR). Both received 2 cycles of re-induction Ipi/Nivo. No grade 3 or greater toxicities occurred with re-induction, but both pts developed PD at their first scans after re-induction. Conclusions: This pilot prospective study demonstrates that patients with a radiographic response to Ipi/Nivo can have prolonged treatment-free intervals. Further studies of de-escalation strategies are warranted. Correlative investigations for this trial are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03126331 .

Compassionate Use Program of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in Intermediate or Poor Risk Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Large Multicenter Italian Study.

Simple SummaryIpilimumab and Nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) improved survival in a pivotal phase III trial conducted in patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) with intermediate or poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score when compared to sunitinib. A compassionate use program of IPI-NIVO was launched in Italy from April through October 2019. The aim of our retrospective study was to assess the outcome of mRCC patients treated with IPI-NIVO within the Italian compassionate use program. Despite one third of patients not completing the induction phase of IPI-NIVO due to either toxicity or early progression, the 12-month survival rate of 66.8% confirms that IPI-NIVO combination is an effective first-line regimen for mRCC patients with IMDC intermediate-poor risk score.This is a retrospective analysis on the safety and activity of compassionate Ipilimumab and Nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) administered to patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) with intermediate or poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score as a first-line regimen. IPI was infused at 1 mg/kg in combination with Nivolumab 3 mg/kg every three weeks for four doses, followed by maintenance Nivolumab (240 or 480 mg flat dose every two or four weeks, respectively) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 324 patients started IPI-NIVO at 86 Italian centers. Median age was 62 years, 68.2% IMDC intermediate risk. Primary tumor had been removed in 65.1% of patients. Two hundred and twenty patients (67.9%) completed the four IPI-NIVO doses. Investigator-assessed overall response rate was 37.6% (2.8% complete). Twelve-month survival rate was 66.8%, median progression-free survival was 8.3 months. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 67 patients (26.9%). IMDC intermediate risk, nephrectomy, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, and steroid use for toxicities correlated with improved survival, while age < 70 years did not. IPI-NIVO combination is a feasible and effective regimen for the first-line treatment of intermediate-poor IMDC risk mRCC patients in routine clinical practice.

A Retrospective Study of First-Line Therapy Involving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Poor Risk Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PurposePatients with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) rarely respond to first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) including sunitinib, and carries a very poor prognosis. In recent years, combination therapy involving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated superior efficacy to sunitinib in poor risk disease.Materials and MethodsIn a retrospective study using a cancer chemotherapy registry, 206 consecutive patients with mRCC in the first-line setting were identified between Oct 2019 and Dec 2020. Sixty-one patients had a poor risk mRCC, and were treated with TKI monotherapy (n=36), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=16), or pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=9). Endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and safety.ResultsPatients’ median age was 61 years and the median number of risk factors was 3 (range, 3-5). During a median 23.0 months of follow-up, the median OS was 24.3 months with ICI-based combinations and 14.8 months with TKI monotherapy, and the median PFS periods were 9.3 months and 3.4 months, respectively. An objective response occurred in 60% of the patients receiving ICI-based combinations and in 19% of those receiving TKI monotherapy (P=0.001). In the multivariate regression model, number of IMDC risk factors and the ICI-based combination therapy were independent prognostic factors for PFS. All-causality grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 44% for ICI-based combinations and 50% for TKI monotherapy.ConclusionsAmong patients with poor risk mRCC, first-line ICI-based therapy showed significantly longer OS and PFS, as well as a higher RR, than TKI monotherapy.

Outcomes of patients with intermediate‐risk or poor‐risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received their first cycle of nivolumab and ipilimumab in the hospital because of symptomatic disease: The MD Anderson Cancer Center experience

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) is an approved therapy for patients with intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Clinical factors that guide the selection of this regimen for patients with mRCC are urgently needed. We retrospectively analyzed medical records of patients with mRCC who were hospitalized at MD Anderson Cancer Center because of cancer-related symptoms and received their first cycle of nivo/ipi in the inpatient setting. Clinical parameters, including demographics, histology, clinical history, response, and survival, were collected. The 4-month survival probability, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Between November 2017 and 21 June 2020 patients were identified that fit the search: 19 patients (91%) had poor-risk disease based on the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score; 17 patients (81%) had ≥4 risk factors; and 9 patients (43%) had sarcomatoid features on histology. Shortness of breath (28%) and abdominal pain (19%) were the two most common reasons for hospitalization. Partial response was achieved in 14% (3/21) of patients. Median PFS for all patients was 1.7months (95% CI 0-3.9); median OS for all patients was 1.7months (95% CI 0-4.2); and the 4-month survival probability was 36% (95% CI 25%-47%). In this retrospective study, patients with intermediate-risk or poor-risk mRCC who are hospitalized at a large tertiary referral center for cancer-related symptoms derive limited clinical benefit from nivo/ipi when started in the inpatient setting. Alternative, more effective systemic therapies should be considered for these patients.

Cytoreductive nephrectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the ultimate urologic 'Choosing Wisely' campaign: a narrative review.

In the early 2000s, cytoreductive nephrectomy in addition to systemic cytokines became standard of care for treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Since that time, the development of novel systemic targeted therapies and immuno-oncologic agents have challenged the utility of cytoreductive nephrectomy in clinical practice. In 2019, the controversial CARMENA study was published, providing the first level one evidence suggesting that cytoreductive nephrectomy combined with targeted therapy yielded no survival advantage over targeted therapy alone in intermediate and poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients. Later that year, the SURTIME trial demonstrated that patients undergoing targeted therapy with delayed nephrectomy maintained a survival advantage over those that underwent upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy followed by targeted therapy. Both of these studies underscored the importance of patient selection and timing of cytoreductive nephrectomy and systemic therapy. As new immuno-oncologic agents are trialed, particularly in combination, the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy will continue to be questioned. In this narrative review, we discuss the evolution of the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma through the context of the ever-changing landscape of targeted therapies and immuno-oncologic agents. We assess the evidence for cytoreductive nephrectomy with respect to patient factors, timing of surgery, and combination with other therapies.

Systemic Analysis and Review of Nivolumab-ipilimumab Combination as a Rescue Strategy for Renal Cell Carcinoma After Treatment With Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Therapy.

Nivolumab-ipilimumab has become the standard of care in the frontline setting for intermediate-/poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This regimen is associated with survival improvement but significant toxicity. Anti-programmed cell death protein 1(PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1(PD-L1) monotherapy may provide response and offers a better safety profile. In this context, nivolumab-ipilimumab has been postulated as a rescue treatment after anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Recent retrospective data has shown positive results, and several nonrandomized clinical trials (NRCTs) have evaluated this strategy. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of available NRCTs to clarify the efficacy and safety of salvage nivolumab-ipilimumab in mRCC after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of salvage nivolumab-ipilimumab after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in patients with mRCC. Only phase II NRCTs were available for the analysis. The pooled effect of single proportions with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as the measure of effect (overall response rate [ORR] and incidence of grade≥ 3 adverse events). Four studies accounting for 237 patients were included. All patients received prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. The pooled ORR of salvage nivolumab-ipilimumab after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 failure was 10.0% (95% CI, 6%-14%; I2= 41%; P= .17). The incidence of grade≥ 3 irAEs was 27.0% (95% CI, 20%-35%; I2= 0%; P= .56). The results of this analysis suggest that the use of salvage nivolumab-ipilimumab in mRCC after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 has limited activity with a 10% ORR, and a non-negligible toxicity with 1 of 4 patients developing grade≥ 3 immune-related adverse events.

Multicenter retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and bone metastases treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab.

648 Background: Ipilimumab &amp; nivolumab (I+N) followed by nivolumab maintenance is approved as front-line therapy for intermediate and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Bone metastases (BM) are present in up to 30% of mRCC patients (pts) and remain a clinical challenge. We present a multicenter experience of mRCC pts with BMs treated with I+N. Methods: Patients with mRCC and bone metastases treated with (I+N) at Duke Cancer Network and Cleveland Clinic were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, tumor histology, IMDC risk stratification, RECIST-defined ORR and adverse events were collected. Fisher’s exact test was used to determine predictors of response (alpha 0.05). Results: Forty-eight pts with mRCC and radiographically confirmed BMs were included in the analysis: 81% male; median age 54 (range: 41-81); 77% clear cell histology; IMDC risk 17%/52%/31% favorable/intermediate/poor, respectively. I+N was used as first-line medical therapy in 63% of pts and ≥ second-line in remaining pts. Best response on I+N per RECIST criteria: objective response rate (ORR) 23% (0% CR); 23% stable disease (SD); 44% progressive disease (PD). Median duration of treatment was 64 days with 27% of pts still on I+N. PD was the most common reason for discontinuation (38%) followed by adverse events (19%). Nearly half of pts (48%) experienced at least one irAE attributed to I+N therapy. None of the factors examined above was significantly associated with response to treatment. Conclusions: I+N has clinical activity and is well tolerated in mRCC pts with bone metastases; however ORR in this population is lower than expected and 44% pts had PD as best response. Therefore, identifying prognostic factors &amp; improving novel therapies for this cohort of patients are priorities, given overall poorer outcomes in this population.

Clinical Activity of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab in Patients With Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Ipilimumab plus nivolumab has been approved for intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the activity in non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) is unknown. Patients from Cleveland Clinic and the University of Texas Southwestern who had received ipilimumab plus nivolumab for metastatic nccRCC from October 2017 to May 2019 were retrospectively identified. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab was administered in accordance with the CHECKMATE 214 trial. Imaging was obtained at baseline and every 12 weeks. The baseline patient characteristics, objective response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0, were analyzed. Eighteen patients were identified. The median age was 59 years (range, 32-81 years), 77.8% were men, and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 (38%) or 1 (50%). The median treatment duration was 2.4 months (range, 0.7-12.3 months). The non-clear cell histologic types included 6 papillary, 5 chromophobe, 3 unclassified, 2 adenocarcinoma of renal origin, 1 translocation, and 1 medullary. Most had an intermediate (66%) or poor (22%) International Metastatic Database Consortium risk. The best objective response included 6 partial responses (PRs; 33.3%) and 3 with stable disease (16.7%). Of the patients with a PR, the median time to the best response was 3.0 months, and median duration of the PR was 4.3 months. The median progression-free survival was 7.1 months. All-grade TRAEs were noted in 11 patients (61.1%) and included colitis (22%), hepatotoxicity (16%), rash (11%), and fatigue (11%). Eleven patients (61%) had TRAEs requiring high-dose glucocorticoids (> 40 mg of prednisone equivalent daily). Ipilimumab plus nivolumab demonstrated objective responses and notable toxicity in patients with nccRCC.

PRISM protocol: a randomised phase II trial of nivolumab in combination with alternatively scheduled ipilimumab in first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BackgroundThe combination of nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeted monoclonal antibody, with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) targeted antibody, ipilimumab, represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on recent phase III data. Combining ipilimumab with nivolumab increases rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity compared with nivolumab alone, and the optimal scheduling of these agents when used together remains unknown. The aim of the PRISM study is to assess whether less frequent dosing of ipilimumab (12-weekly versus 3-weekly), in combination with nivolumab, is associated with a favourable toxicity profile without adversely impacting efficacy.MethodsThe PRISM trial is a UK-based, open label, multi-centre, phase II, randomised controlled trial. The trial population consists of patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, and aims to recruit 189 participants. Participants will be randomised on a 2:1 basis in favour of a modified schedule of 4 doses of 12-weekly ipilimumab versus a standard schedule of 4 doses of 3-weekly ipilimumab, both in combination with standard nivolumab. The proportion of participants experiencing a grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction within 12 months forms the primary endpoint of the study, but with 12-month progression free survival a key secondary endpoint. The incidence of all adverse events, discontinuation rates, overall response rate, duration of response, overall survival rates and health related quality of life will also be analysed as secondary endpoints. In addition, the potential of circulating and tissue-based biomarkers as predictors of therapy response will be explored.DiscussionThe combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is active in patients with mRCC. Modifying the frequency of ipilimumab dosing may mitigate toxicity rates and positively impact quality of life without compromising efficacy, a hypothesis being explored in other tumour types such as non-small cell lung cancer. The best way to give this combination to patients with mRCC must be similarly established.Trial registrationPRISM is registered with ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN95351638, 19/12/2017).Trial statusAt the time of submission, PRISM is open to recruitment and data collection is ongoing.

Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines for Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients with Synchronous Metastatic Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has been the standard of care in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cancer who present with the tumour in place. The CARMENA trial compared systemic therapy alone with CN followed by systemic therapy. This article outlines the new guidelines based on these data. Patient summaryThe CARMENA trial demonstrates that immediate cytoreductive nephrectomy should no longer be considered the standard of care in patients diagnosed with intermediate and poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma when medical treatment is required. However, the psychological burden poor risk patients experience hearing that removal of their primary tumour will not be beneficial, should be carefully considered.

ECOG score analysis as a proxy for health-related quality of life assessment in patients with poor or intermediate risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the CABOSUN trial (Alliance A031203).

e18690Background: CABOSUN, a randomized and open-label phase II trial, demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with cabozantinib versus sunitinib in the first-line t...

Characterization of patients (pts) with poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from a pooled clinical trials database.

515 Background: Survival outcomes are heterogeneous across different subsets of mRCC pts. Poor risk pts have grim outcomes and are less likely to be enrolled in clinical trials, hence the lack of prospective data characterizing this pt population. We provide a comprehensive analysis of poor risk pts, as defined by three widely used prognostic models, in the era of targeted therapy. Methods: We conducted a pooled retrospective analysis of 4,736 mRCC pts treated on phase II and III clinical trials. Pts were defined as poor risk according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC), and Hudes prognostic risk models. We evaluated overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) in poor risk pts in each of the risk models in the total cohort and in a subset of pts who remained on treatment for &gt;12 months (mos). The models’ concordance (c-) index was used to assess their prognostic performance. Results: We identified 1145 (24.2%), 904 (19.1%), and 1901 (40.1%) poor risk pts by IMDC, MSKCC, and Hudes models, respectively. The majority were &lt;65 years of age (70-73%) with clear-cell histology (85-88%), prior nephrectomy (62-66%), and no prior systemic therapy (80-86%). The efficacy and toxicity outcomes as well as the c-indexes for each of the models are reported in the table below. Additionally, 9-14% of poor risk pts remained on therapy for &gt;12 mos and had higher OS (29.8-35.2 mos) and ORR (42-53%). Conclusions: In this large database of poor risk mRCC pts, we highlight that the models have similar predictive accuracy in the targeted therapy era. We also demonstrate that poor risk pts continue to have dismal outcomes and should be considered for trials of novel agents and combinations. A subset of these pts appears to derive prolonged clinical benefit and should be further explored.[Table: see text]

P139 - Comparison of sunitinib versus temsirolimus in patients with poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma

P139 - Comparison of sunitinib versus temsirolimus in patients with poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma