An interdisciplinary consensus on the management of brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Brain metastases are a challenging manifestation of renal cell carcinoma. We have a limited understanding of brain metastasis tumor and immune biology, drivers of resistance to systemic treatment, and their overall poor prognosis. Current data support a multimodal treatment strategy with radiation treatment and/or surgery. Nonetheless, the optimal approach for the management of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma remains unclear. To improve patient care, the authors sought to standardize practical management strategies. They performed an unstructured literature review and elaborated on the current management strategies through an international group of experts from different disciplines assembled via the network of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition. Experts from different disciplines were administered a survey to answer questions related to current challenges and unmet patient needs. On the basis of the integrated approach of literature review and survey study results, the authors built algorithms for the management of single and multiple brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The literature review, consensus statements, and algorithms presented in this report can serve as a framework guiding treatment decisions for patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:454-489.

Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS: Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.).

Perioperative nivolumab versus observation in patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing nephrectomy (PROSPER ECOG-ACRIN EA8143): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for patients with intermediate-to-high risk renal cell carcinoma is partial or radical nephrectomy followed by surveillance. We aimed to investigate use of nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma to determine recurrence-free survival compared with surgery only. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (PROSPER EA8143), patients were recruited from 183 community and academic sites across the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, with previously untreated clinical stage T2 or greater or Tany N+ renal cell carcinoma of clear cell or non-clear cell histology planned for partial or radical nephrectomy. Selected patients with oligometastatic disease, who were disease free at other disease sites within 12 weeks of surgery, were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients using permuted blocks (block size of 4) within stratum (clinical TNM stage) to either nivolumab plus surgery, or surgery only followed by surveillance. In the nivolumab group, nivolumab 480 mg was administered before surgery, followed by nine adjuvant doses. The primary endpoint was investigator-reviewed recurrence-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma assessed in all randomly assigned patients regardless of histology. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started the assigned protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03055013, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021, 819 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus surgery (404 [49%]) or surgery only (415 [51%]). 366 (91%) of 404 patients assigned to nivolumab plus surgery and 387 (93%) of 415 patients assigned to surgery only group started treatment. Median age was 61 years (IQR 53-69), 248 (30%) of 819 patients were female, 571 (70%) were male, 672 (88%) were White, and 77 (10%) were Hispanic or Latino. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee stopped the trial at a planned interim analysis (March 25, 2022) because of futility. Median follow-up was 30·4 months (IQR 21·5-42·4) in the nivolumab group and 30·1 months (21·9-41·8) in the surgery only group. 381 (94%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 399 (96%) of 415 in the surgery only group had renal cell carcinoma and were included in the recurrence-free survival analysis. As of data cutoff (May 24, 2023), recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between nivolumab (125 [33%] of 381 had recurrence-free survival events) versus surgery only (133 [33%] of 399; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·21]; one-sided p=0·32). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated lipase (17 [5%] of 366 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group vs none in the surgery only group), anaemia (seven [2%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [3%] vs one [<1%]), abdominal pain (four [1%] vs six [2%]), and increased serum amylase (nine [2%] vs none). 177 (48%) patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 93 (24%) in the surgery only group had grade 3-5 adverse events due to any cause, the most common of which were anaemia (23 [6%] vs 19 [5%]), hypertension (27 [7%] vs nine [2%]), and elevated lipase (18 [5%] vs six [2%]). 48 (12%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab group and 40 (10%) of 415 in the surgery only group died, of which eight (2%) and three (1%), respectively, were determined to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Perioperative nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab did not improve recurrence-free survival versus surgery only followed by surveillance in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.

Trends in health care spending on kidney cancer in the United States, 1996-2016.

BACKGROUND: Paradigm shifts in kidney cancer management have led to higher health care spending. Here, total and per capita health care spending and primary drivers of change in health expenditures for kidney cancer in the United States between 1996 and 2016 are estimated. METHODS: Public databases developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation for the Disease Expenditure Project were used. The prevalence of kidney cancer was estimated from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Changes in health care spending on kidney cancer were assessed by joinpoint regression and expressed as annual percent changes (APCs). RESULTS: In 2016, total health care spending on kidney cancer was $3.42 billion (95% CI, $2.91 billion to $3.89 billion) compared with $1.18 billion (95% CI, $1.07 billion to $1.31 billion) in 1996. Per capita spending had two inflection points in 2005 and 2008, close to the approval years of targeted therapies, which corresponded to APCs of +2.9% (95% CI, +2.3% to +3.6%; p < .001) per year, 1996-2005; +9.2% (95% CI, +3.4% to +15.2%; p = .004) per year, 2005-2008; and +3.1% (95% CI, +2.2% to +3.9%; p < .001) per year, 2008-2016. Inpatient care was the largest contributor to health expenditures, which accounted for $1.56 billion (95% CI, $1.19 billion to $1.95 billion) in 2016. Price and intensity of care was the primary driver of increased health expenditures, whereas service utilization was the primary driver of reduced health expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence-adjusted health care spending on kidney cancer continues to rise in the United States, which is primarily attributable to inpatient care and driven by the price and intensity of care over time.

Outcomes of relapsed clinical stage I versus de novo metastatic testicular cancer patients: an analysis of the IGCCCG Update database.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance after orchiectomy is the preferred management in clinical stage I (CSI) germ-cell tumours (GCT) associated with a 15 to 30% relapse rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the IGCCCG Update database, we compared the outcomes of gonadal disseminated GCT relapsing from initial CSI to outcomes of patients with de novo metastatic GCT. RESULTS: A total of 1014 seminoma (Sem) [298 (29.4%) relapsed from CSI, 716 (70.6%) de novo] and 3103 non-seminoma (NSem) [626 (20.2%) relapsed from CSI, 2477 (79.8%) de novo] were identified. Among Sem, no statistically significant differences in PFS and OS were found between patients relapsing from CSI and de novo metastatic disease [5-year progression-free survival (5y-PFS) 87.6% versus 88.5%; 5-year overall survival (5y-OS) 93.2% versus 96.1%). Among NSem, PFS and OS were higher overall in relapsing CSI patients (5y-PFS 84.6% versus 80.0%; 5y-OS 93.3% versus 88.7%), but there were no differences within the same IGCCCG prognostic groups (HR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.70-1.12). Relapses in the intermediate or poor prognostic groups occurred in 11/298 (4%) Sem and 112/626 (18%) NSem. CONCLUSION: Relapsing CSI GCT patients expect similar survival compared to de novo metastatic patients of the same ICCCCG prognostic group. Intermediate and poor prognosis relapses from initial CSI expose patients to unnecessary toxicity from more intensive treatments.

Development and Validation of a Prognostic Risk Model for Patients with Advanced Melanoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification tools for patients with advanced melanoma (AM) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are lacking. We identified a new prognostic model associated with overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 318 treatment naïve patients with AM receiving ICI were collected from a multi-centre retrospective cohort study. LASSO Cox regression identified independent prognostic factors associated with OS. Model validation was carried out on 500 iterations of bootstrapped samples. Harrel's C-index was calculated and internally validated to outline the model's discriminatory performance. External validation was carried out in 142 advanced melanoma patients receiving ICI in later lines. RESULTS: High white blood cell count (WBC), high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), low albumin, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥1, and the presence of liver metastases were included in the model. Patients were parsed into 3 risk groups: favorable (0-1 factors) OS of 52.9 months, intermediate (2-3 factors) OS 13.0 months, and poor (≥4 factors) OS 2.7 months. The C-index of the model from the discovery cohort was 0.69. External validation in later-lines (N = 142) of therapy demonstrated a c-index of 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: Liver metastases, low albumin, high LDH, high WBC, and ECOG≥1 can be combined into a prognostic model for AM patients treated with ICI.

Characterization of Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Experiencing Complete Response to First-line Therapies: Results From the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials have demonstrated higher complete response rates in the immuno-oncology-based combination arms than in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor arms in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to characterize real-world patients who experienced complete response to the contemporary first-line therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium, response-evaluable patients who received frontline immuno-oncology-based combination therapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy were analyzed. Baseline characteristics of patients and post-landmark overall survival were compared based on best overall response, as per RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: A total of 52 (4.6%) of 1,126 and 223 (3.0%) of 7,557 patients experienced complete response to immuno-oncology-based and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies, respectively (P = .005). An adjusted odds ratio for complete response achieved by immuno-oncology-based combination therapy (vs tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy) was 1.56 (95% CI 1.11-2.17; P = .009). Among patients who experienced complete response, the immuno-oncology-based cohort had a higher proportion of non-clear cell histology (15.9% and 4.7%; P = .016), sarcomatoid dedifferentiation (29.8% and 13.5%; P = .014), and multiple sites of metastases (80.4% and 50.0%; P < .001) than the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohort. Complete response was independently associated with post-landmark overall survival benefit in both the immuno-oncology-based and tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohorts, giving respective adjusted hazard ratios of 0.17 (95% CI 0.04-0.72; P = .016) and 0.28 (95% CI 0.21-0.38; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The complete response rate was not as high in the real-world population as in the clinical trial population. Among those who experienced complete response, several adverse clinicopathological features were more frequently observed in the immuno-oncology-based cohort than in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohort. Complete response was an indicator of favorable overall survival.

A comparison of sunitinib with cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: MET (also known as hepatocyte growth factor receptor) signalling is a key driver of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Given that no optimal therapy for metastatic PRCC exists, we aimed to compare an existing standard of care, sunitinib, with the MET kinase inhibitors cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of patients with PRCC. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 65 centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic PRCC who had received up to one previous therapy (excluding vascular endothelial growth factor-directed and MET-directed agents). Patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib, with stratification by receipt of previous therapy and PRCC subtype. All drug doses were administered orally: sunitinib 50 mg, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off (dose reductions to 37·5 mg and 25 mg allowed); cabozantinib 60 mg daily (reductions to 40 mg and 20 mg allowed); crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (reductions to 200 mg twice daily and 250 mg once daily allowed); and savolitinib 600 mg daily (reductions to 400 mg and 200 mg allowed). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population, with patients who did not receive protocol therapy excluded from safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02761057. FINDINGS: Between April 5, 2016, and Dec 15, 2019, 152 patients were randomly assigned to one of four study groups. Five patients were identified as ineligible post-randomisation and were excluded from these analyses, resulting in 147 eligible patients. Assignment to the savolitinib (29 patients) and crizotinib (28 patients) groups was halted after a prespecified futility analysis; planned accrual was completed for both sunitinib (46 patients) and cabozantinib (44 patients) groups. PFS was longer in patients in the cabozantinib group (median 9·0 months, 95% CI 6-12) than in the sunitinib group (5·6 months, 3-7; hazard ratio for progression or death 0·60, 0·37-0·97, one-sided p=0·019). Response rate for cabozantinib was 23% versus 4% for sunitinib (two-sided p=0·010). Savolitinib and crizotinib did not improve PFS compared with sunitinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 31 (69%) of 45 patients receiving sunitinib, 32 (74%) of 43 receiving cabozantinib, ten (37%) of 27 receiving crizotinib, and 11 (39%) of 28 receiving savolitinib; one grade 5 thromboembolic event was recorded in the cabozantinib group. INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib treatment resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sunitinib in patients with metastatic PRCC. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.

Complementary Medicine Use Amongst Patients with Metastatic Cancer Enrolled in Phase III Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Complementary medicines (CM) are frequently used by patients with cancer. Controversy exists over the effectiveness and risk that CM may add to conventional cancer therapy. The incidence of CM use among patients enrolled in phase III clinical trials is unknown. METHODS: Medication lists from 6 international phase III clinical trials were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients using CM. Patients had metastatic breast, colorectal, or lung cancers. Quality of life, adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival were compared between CM users and non-users. Baseline differences between groups were adjusted with propensity score matching groups. RESULTS: Seven hundred and six of 3446 patients (20.5%) used at least one CM. CM use was highest among patients with breast cancer (35.6%). CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors (ECOG 0-1, non-smoking status, younger age, and fewer metastases). CM use was associated with lower rates of adverse events (50% vs. 62%, P = .002) and quality of life was similar between both groups. After adjustment with propensity score matching, CM use was also associated with longer overall survival in patients with lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.80, 95%CI, 0.68-0.94, P =.0054). However, several key control variables like EGFR status were not available. CONCLUSION: One in 5 patients in phase III clinical trials report using CM. CM was not associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes. However, CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors, and likely other confounders that may have contributed to improved outcomes observed in the lung cohort. Physicians should monitor for CM use and potential interactions with clinical trial drugs.

A Randomized Phase II Study of AGS-16C3F Versus Axitinib in Previously Treated Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: The primary endpoint of this phase II study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the investigational compound, AGS-16C3F, versus axitinib in previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was not met. Median progression-free survival, the primary endpoint, was 2.9 months with AGS-16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (HR, 1.676; 95% CI, 1.107-2.537; p = .015), per investigator assessment The safety profile for each study drug was as expected, with the most commonly reported adverse events being fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS-16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. These results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC. BACKGROUND: AGS-16C3F is a novel antibody-drug conjugate that targets cell-surface ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase 3 (ENPP3) and is conjugated to a microtubule disruptive agent. Here we present findings from a phase II study of AGS-16C3F versus axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: Patients with mRCC of any histology and disease progression during or after their last treatment regimen were randomized 1:1 to intravenous AGS-16C3F 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks or oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary objective was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) of AGS-16C3F versus axitinib (RECIST version 1.1). RESULTS: In the total population (N = 133), 63% (n = 84) of patients had completed the study at data cutoff (August 21, 2019). Median PFS was 2.9 months with AGS-16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.676; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.107-2.537; p = .015). There were no significant differences between arms in secondary efficacy endpoints, including overall survival (13.1 months, AGS-16C3F and 15.4 months, axitinib; HR, 1.079; 95% CI, 0.681-1.707; p = .747). In the safety population (n = 131), the most commonly reported adverse events were fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS-16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. The incidence of diarrhea was lower in the AGS-16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (17% vs. 48%), and ocular toxicities were more frequent in the AGS-16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (44% vs. 26%). CONCLUSION: The investigational compound, AGS-16C3F, did not meet the primary endpoint of this trial. These study results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.

Real-World Assessment of Clinical Outcomes Among First-Line Sunitinib Patients with Clear Cell Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium Risk Group.

BACKGROUND: International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups are important when considering therapeutic options for first-line treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with clear cell mRCC initiating first-line sunitinib between 2010 and 2018 were included in this retrospective database study. Median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Outcomes were stratified by IMDC risk groups and evaluated for those in the combined intermediate and poor risk group and separately for those in the intermediate risk group with one versus two risk factors. RESULTS: Among 1,769 patients treated with first-line sunitinib, 318 (18%) had favorable, 1,031 (58%) had intermediate, and 420 (24%) had poor IMDC risk. Across the three risk groups, patients had similar age, gender, and sunitinib initiation year. Median TTD was 15.0, 8.5, and 4.2 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 7.1 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS was 52.1, 31.5, and 9.8 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 23.2 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS (35.1 vs. 21.9 months) and TTD (10.3 vs. 6.6 months) were significantly different between intermediate risk patients with one versus two risk factors. CONCLUSION: This real-world study found a median OS of 52 months for patients with favorable IMDC risk treated with first-line sunitinib, setting a new benchmark on clinical outcomes of clear cell mRCC. Analysis of intermediate risk group by one or two risk factors demonstrated distinct clinical outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This analysis offers a contemporary benchmark for overall survival (median, 52.1 months; 95% confidence interval, 43.4-61.2) among patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy in a real-world setting and classified as favorable risk according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification. This study demonstrates that clinical outcomes differ between IMDC risk groups as well as within the intermediate risk group based on the number of risk factors, thus warranting further consideration of risk group when counseling patients about therapeutic options and designing clinical trials.

Management of Germ Cell Tumors During the Outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic: A Survey of International Expertise Centers.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a public health emergency affecting frail populations, including patients with cancer. This poses the question of whether cancer treatments can be postponed or modified without compromising their efficacy, especially for highly curable cancers such as germ cell tumors (GCTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: To depict the state-of-the-art management of GCTs during the COVID-19 pandemic, a survey including 26 questions was circulated by e-mail among the physicians belonging to three cooperative groups: (a) Italian Germ Cell Cancer Group; (b) European Reference Network-Rare Adult Solid Cancers, Domain G3 (rare male genitourinary cancers); and (c) Genitourinary Medical Oncologists of Canada. Percentages of agreement between Italian respondents (I) versus Canadian respondents (C), I versus European respondents (E), and E versus C were compared by using Fisher's exact tests for dichotomous answers and chi square test for trends for the questions with three or more options. RESULTS: Fifty-three GCT experts responded to the survey: 20 Italian, 6 in other European countries, and 27 from Canada. Telemedicine was broadly used; there was high consensus to interrupt chemotherapy in COVID-19-positive patients (I = 75%, C = 55%, and E = 83.3%) and for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis for neutropenia (I = 65%, C = 62.9%, and E = 50%). The main differences emerged regarding the management of stage I and stage IIA disease, likely because of cultural and geographical differences. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the common efforts of GCT experts in Europe and Canada to maintain high standards of treatment for patients with GCT with few changes in their management during the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite the chaos, disruptions, and fears fomented by the COVID-19 illness, oncology care teams in Italy, other European countries, and Canada are delivering the enormous promise of curative management strategies for patients with testicular cancer and other germ cell tumors. At the same time, these teams are applying safe and innovative solutions and sharing best practices to minimize frequency and intensity of patient contacts with thinly stretched health care capacity.

Cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma on the basis of studies done in clear-cell histology. The activity of cabozantinib in patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma is poorly characterised. We sought to analyse the antitumour activity and toxicity of cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We did a multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study of patients with metastatic non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with oral cabozantinib during any treatment line at 22 centres: 21 in the USA and one in Belgium. Eligibility required patients with histologically confirmed non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma who received cabozantinib for metastatic disease during any treatment line roughly between 2015 and 2018. Mixed tumours with a clear-cell histology component were excluded. No other restrictive inclusion criteria were applied. Data were obtained from retrospective chart review by investigators at each institution. Demographic, surgical, pathological, and systemic therapy data were captured with uniform database templates to ensure consistent data collection. The main objectives were to estimate the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, time to treatment failure, and overall survival after treatment. FINDINGS: Of 112 identified patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated at the participating centres, 66 (59%) had papillary histology, 17 (15%) had Xp11.2 translocation histology, 15 (13%) had unclassified histology, ten (9%) had chromophobe histology, and four (4%) had collecting duct histology. The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response across all histologies was 30 (27%, 95% CI 19-36) of 112 patients. At a median follow-up of 11 months (IQR 6-18), median time to treatment failure was 6·7 months (95% CI 5·5-8·6), median progression-free survival was 7·0 months (5·7-9·0), and median overall survival was 12·0 months (9·2-17·0). The most common adverse events of any grade were fatigue (58 [52%]), and diarrhoea (38 [34%]). The most common grade 3 events were skin toxicity (rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia; five [4%]) and hypertension (four [4%]). No treatment-related deaths were observed. Across 54 patients with available next-generation sequencing data, the most frequently altered somatic genes were CDKN2A (12 [22%]) and MET (11 [20%]) with responses seen irrespective of mutational status. INTERPRETATION: While we await results from prospective studies, this real-world study provides evidence supporting the antitumour activity and safety of cabozantinib across non-clear-cell renal cell carcinomas. Continued support of international collaborations and prospective ongoing studies targeting non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes and specific molecular alterations are warranted to improve outcomes across these rare diseases with few evidence-based treatment options. FUNDING: None.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

The evolving role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the evidence related to cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated in the targeted therapy era, with a focus on observational studies and randomized trials. RECENT FINDINGS: A number of retrospective observational studies exploring the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy have been reported. These have suggested an association between cytoreductive nephrectomy and survival, with hazard ratio estimates ranging from 0.39 to 0.68 in favour of cytoreductive nephrectomy. In contrast, the CARMENA randomized trial demonstrated that sunitinib alone was noninferior to cytoreductive nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in intermediate-risk and poor-risk patients. The results of the SURTIME trial suggest that initial sunitinib followed by a deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy may also be a reasonable approach in select patients. SUMMARY: On the basis of the evidence to date, there is still a role for cytoreductive nephrectomy in the multimodality treatment of mRCC. Careful patient selection is of paramount importance and discussion in multidisciplinary tumour boards is encouraged. As the treatment landscape of mRCC continues to change, the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the modern immuno-oncology era will need to be explored.

Checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, outcomes and prognostic tools have yet to be clearly defined in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are treated with immuno-oncology (IO) checkpoint inhibitors (programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] inhibitors). In the current study, the authors aimed to establish IO efficacy benchmarks in patients with mRCC and update patient outcomes in each International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic class. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using the IMDC database with data from 38 centers. It included patients with mRCC who were treated with ≥1 line of IO. Overall response rates (ORRs), duration of treatment (DOT), and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Patients were stratified using IMDC prognostic factors. RESULTS: A total of 687 patients (90% with clear cell and 10% with non-clear cell) were included. The ORR was 27% in evaluable patients (461 patients). In patients treated with first-line nivolumab and ipilimumab (49 patients), the combination of PD-L1 inhibitor and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (72 patients), and PD-L1 inhibitor (51 patients), the ORR was 31%, 39%, and 40%, respectively, and the median DOT was 8.3 months, 14.7 months, and 8.3 months, respectively. The ORR for second-line, third-line, and fourth-line nivolumab was 22%, 24%, and 26%, respectively. The median DOT was 5.7 months, 6.2 months, and 8.3 months, respectively, in the second-line, third-line, and fourth-line settings. When segregated into IMDC favorable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk groups, the median OS rates for the first-line, second-line, third-line, and fourth-line treatment settings were not reached (NR), NR, and NR, respectively (P = .163); NR, 26.7 months, and 7.4 months, respectively (P < 0. 0001); 36.1 months, 28.2 months, and 11.1 months, respectively (P = .016); and NR, NR, and 6.7 months, respectively (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: The ORR was not found to deteriorate from the first-line to the fourth-line of IO therapy. In the second line through fourth line, the IMDC criteria appropriately stratified patients into favorable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk groups for OS.

Cabozantinib versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is an oral, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as MET and AXL, each of which has been implicated in the pathobiology of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma or in the development of resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib, as compared with everolimus, in patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 658 patients to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily or everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary efficacy end points were overall survival and objective response rate. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months with cabozantinib and 3.8 months with everolimus. The rate of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 21% with cabozantinib and 5% with everolimus (P<0.001). A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P=0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary for the interim analysis. Adverse events were managed with dose reductions; doses were reduced in 60% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 25% of those who received everolimus. Discontinuation of study treatment owing to adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 10% of those who received everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus among patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. (Funded by Exelixis; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01865747.).

Retroperitoneal Lymphadenectomy for High Risk, Nonmetastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Analysis of the ASSURE (ECOG-ACRIN 2805) Adjuvant Trial.

PURPOSE: Lymphadenectomy is a well established practice for many urological malignancies but its role in renal cell carcinoma is less clear. Our primary objective was to determine whether lymphadenectomy impacted survival in patients with fully resected, high risk renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with fully resected, high risk, nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomized to adjuvant sorafenib, sunitinib or placebo in the ASSURE (Adjuvant Sorafenib and Sunitinib for Unfavorable Renal Carcinoma) trial. Lymphadenectomy was performed for cN+ disease or at surgeon discretion. Patients treated with lymphadenectomy were compared to patients in the trial who did not undergo lymphadenectomy. The primary outcome was overall survival associated with lymphadenectomy. Secondary outcomes were disease free survival, factors associated with performing lymphadenectomy and surgical complications. RESULTS: Of the 1,943 patients in ASSURE 701 (36.1%) underwent lymphadenectomy, including all resectable patients with cN+ and 30.1% of those with cN0 disease. A median of 3 lymph nodes (IQR 1-8) were removed and the rate of pN+ disease in the lymphadenectomy group was 23.4%. There was no overall survival benefit for lymphadenectomy relative to no lymphadenectomy (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93-1.39, p = 0.20). In patients with pN+ disease who underwent lymphadenectomy no improvement in overall or disease-free survival was observed for adjuvant therapy relative to placebo. Lymphadenectomy did not confer an increased risk of surgical complications (14.2% vs 13.4%, p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing surgery for high risk renal cell carcinoma remains uncertain. Future strategies to answer this question should include a prospective trial in which patients with high risk renal cell carcinoma are randomized to specific lymphadenectomy templates.