First-line Systemic Therapy Following Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma: An International Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but real-world data on sequential treatment are scarce. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of first-line (1L) systemic therapy following adjuvant immune oncology (IO)-based regimens. METHODS: A retrospective study including patients with recurrent RCC following adjuvant IO across 29 international institutions was conducted. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) on 1L systemic therapy estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Preplanned subanalyses of clinical outcomes by type of 1L systemic therapy, recurrence timing, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups were performed. Treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, or corticosteroid use were assessed. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 94 patients were included. Most received adjuvant pembrolizumab (n = 37, 39%), atezolizumab (n = 28, 30%), or nivolumab + ipilimumab (n = 15, 16%). The cohort included 49 (52%) patients who had recurrence within 3 mo of the last adjuvant IO dose, whereas 45 (48%) recurred beyond 3 mo. Bone metastases were significantly higher in tumors recurring at <3 mo (10/49, 20%) than those recurring at >3 mo (1/45, 2.2%; p = 0.008). Most patients received 1L vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (VEGF-TT; n = 37, 39%), IO + VEGF-TT (n = 26, 28%), or IO + IO (n = 12, 13%). The remaining underwent local therapy. The median follow-up for the 1L systemic therapy cohort was 15 mo. The 18-mo PFS and OS rates were 45% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-60) and 85% (95% CI: 75-95), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (42%) patients and included skin toxicity (n = 7, 9.2%), fatigue (n = 6, 7.9%), and diarrhea/colitis (n = 4, 5.3%). Limitations included selecting patients from large academic centers and the short follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A subset of patients with recurrent RCC following adjuvant IO respond to systemic therapies, including VEGF-TT and IO-based regimens. Notably, patients with favorable-risk disease may derive more benefit from VEGF-TT than from IO therapies in this setting. Future approaches utilizing radiographic tools and biomarker-based liquid biopsies are warranted to detect occult metastatic disease and identify candidate patients for adjuvant IO therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). There are limited data on clinical outcomes after the recurrence of RCC tumors following adjuvant immunotherapy. In this study, we find that patients respond to subsequent systemic therapies across different treatment options.

Italian Registry on Rare Urological Tumors (Meet-URO-23): The First Analysis on Collecting Duct Carcinoma of the Kidney.

INTRODUCTION: Rare genitourinary tumors are lacking of randomized and observational data. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with collecting duct carcinoma (CDC) through the Meet-URO 23/I-RARE database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicentric retrospective-prospective study within the Meet-URO network, enrolling patients from March 2021 (retrospectively up from 2011) until March 2023. The primary objective was to describe the clinical characteristics of patients with CDC, the secondary objectives were to assess the oncological outcomes in terms of relapse-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) to treatment. RESULTS: 37 patients with CDC were enrolled. Four patients underwent only surgery, 33 received first-line systemic therapy. Median OS was 22.1 months (95% CI, 8.9-31.9). Median RFS for patients with localized disease at onset (n = 30) was 3.7 months (95% CI, 1.9-12.8), median PFS for first-line treatment was 3.3 months (95% CI, 2.7-9.9), with an ORR of 27%. Female sex and good performance status (PS) were associated with longer PFS (P = .072 and P < .01, respectively) and OS (P = .030 and P = .141, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CDC had dismal prognosis, with scarce benefit from the available treatments. Female sex and good PS seemed to be associated with better prognosis.

Outcomes of First-Line Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide for Older Adults With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer According to Use of Upfront Docetaxel for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in an International Multicenter Registry: A SPARTACUSS-Meet-URO 26 Study.

BACKGROUND: Managing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in men aged ≥ 75 is challenging due to limited data. Regardless of age, in real-world clinical practice, most mCRPC still derive from failure of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel (D) for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). As abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) and enzalutamide (Enza) are common first-line treatments for mCRPC. The impact of prior use of D for mCSPC on the efficacy and safety of AA or Enza in this older population remains unclear. METHODS: A cohort of patients aged ≥ 75 years starting AA or Enza as first-line therapy for mCRPC from January 2015 to April 2019 was identified from the registries of 10 institutions. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on previous use of D for mCSPC. Primary endpoints were cancer-specific survival (CSS) from AA or Enza start, CSS from ADT onset, and safety. We used Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the endpoints distribution, including median values with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of the 337 patients identified, 24 (7.1%) received ADT+D and 313 (92.9%) received ADT alone for mCSPC. Median follow-up from AA/Enza start was 18.8 months. Median CSS from ADT or AA/Enza was not significantly different between ADT+D and ADT alone cohorts (71.9 vs. 52.7 months, P = .97; 25.4 vs. 27.2 months, P = .89, respectively). No statistically significant difference in adverse events (AEs) of any grade rate (58.3% vs. 52.1%, respectively; P = .67) or grade ≥ 3 (12.5% vs. 15.7%, respectively; P = 1.0) was found between ADT+D and ADT alone cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the innate limitations of a retrospective design and relatively small size of the ADT+D cohort, this analysis suggests that elderly men receiving AA or Enza as first-line therapy for mCRPC have similar survival outcomes and tolerability, regardless of previous D for mCSPC.

Sunitinib for the treatment of patients with advanced pheochromocytomas or paragangliomas: The phase 2 non-randomized SUTNET clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic Pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGLs) are rare neuroendocrine tumors characterized by high morbidity and limited systemic treatment options, mainly based on radiometabolic treatments or chemotherapy. Based on the preclinical rationale that PGGLs carcinogenesis relies on angiogenesis, treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) may represent another viable therapeutic option. METHODS: We conducted a prospective phase II study in patients with metastatic or unresectable PGGLs. Patients received sunitinib (50 mg daily for 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest period) until progressive disease (PD), unacceptable toxicity or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate; secondary endpoints were safety overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1 criteria and overall survival (OS). EudraCT Number: 2011-002632-99. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included. At a median follow-up of 71.7 months (IQR 35.4-100.1), the 1 year-PFS rate was 53.4 % (95 %CI 41.1-69.3) and median PFS was 14.1 months (95 % CI 8.9-25.7). ORR was 15.6 %, the median OS was 49.4 months (95 %CI 21.2-NA), and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were reported in 34 % patients. No significant correlation was found between specific genetic alterations or genomic clusters and sunitinib efficacy. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib is an active drug in patients with advanced PGGLs, capable of inducing prolonged disease control with a manageable toxicity profile.

Long-term responders to nivolumab in previously treated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a sub-analysis of meet-URO15 study.

BACKGROUND: Although nivolumab prolongs overall survival (OS) in pretreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), underlining clinical and biological features of long-term responses are still to be determined. This study aims to investigate clinical and pathological characteristics of mRCC patients who achieved long-term responses during nivolumab treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on mRCC patients receiving nivolumab as second or further therapy line between May 2016 and January 2019 in 34 Italian Oncology Centres. Outcome assessments and logistic regression were performed to evaluate factors influencing long-term responses. RESULTS: A total of 571 patients with a median age of 61 years (range 17-85) were included in the analysis. With a median follow-up of 22.1 (1.0-89.0) months, 23.1% of patients were 2-year progression-free on treatment with nivolumab, hence they were categorized as long-term responders. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, and histology, were similar between long- and short-term responders. Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 80% was significantly associated with long-term response (p = 0.02), while bone metastases (p = 0.03), International mRCC Database Consortium intermediate-poor risk (p < 0.01) and Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio ≥ 3.2 (p = 0.02) were associate with short-term responses. Long-term responders exhibited a median progression-free survival of 55.0 months versus 4.0 months of the short-term responders. The median OS was not reached in long-term responders while it was 17.0 months for short*term responders. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis sheds light on factors associated with long-term response to nivolumab in mRCC. Understanding these clinical features will be essential for selecting patients who may mostly benefit from immunotherapy.

International multicenter real-world REGistry for patients with metastatic renAL cell carcinoma - Meet-URO 33 study (REGAL study).

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, different therapeutic options are available for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Immuno-combinations are the standard first-line therapy in all mRCC patients regardless of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, even though TKI monotherapy is still a therapeutic option in selected patients. However, comparisons between the different first-line treatment strategies are lacking and few real-world data are available in this setting. For this reason, the regimen choice represents an important issue in clinical practice and the optimal treatment sequence remains unclear. METHODS: The REGAL study is a multicentric prospective observational study enrolling mRCC patients treated with first-line systemic therapy according to clinical practice in a real-world setting. A retrospective cohort of mRCC patients who received first-line systemic therapy from the 1st of January 2021 will also be included. The primary objective is to identify potential prognostic and predictive factors that could help guide the treatment choice; secondary objectives included the assessment of the prognostic performance of the novel prognostic Meet-URO score (IMDC score + neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio + bone metastases) compared with the IMDC score and the comparison between treatment strategies according to response and survival outcomes and toxicity profile. DISCUSSION: Considering the high number of therapeutic first-line strategies available for mRCC, the identification of clinical prognostic and predictive factors to candidate patients to a preferable systemic therapy is still an unmet clinical need. The Meet-URO 33 study aims to provide a large-scale real-world database on mRCC patients, to identify the clinical predictive and prognostic factors and the different performances between the ICI-based combinations according to response, survival and toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CESC IOV 2023-78.

Delphi consensus on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma-a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology study endorsed by the European Association of Urology.

The purpose of this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) project, endorsed by the European Association of Urology, is to explore expert opinion on the management of patients with oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma by means of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on extracranial metastases, with the aim of developing consensus recommendations for patient selection, treatment doses, and concurrent systemic therapy. A questionnaire on SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma was prepared by a core group and reviewed by a panel of ten prominent experts in the field. The Delphi consensus methodology was applied, sending three rounds of questionnaires to clinicians identified as key opinion leaders in the field. At the end of the third round, participants were able to find consensus on eight of the 37 questions. Specifically, panellists agreed to apply no restrictions regarding age (25 [100%) of 25) and primary renal cell carcinoma histology (23 [92%] of 25) for SABR candidates, on the upper threshold of three lesions to offer ablative treatment in patients with oligoprogression, and on the concomitant administration of immune checkpoint inhibitor. SABR was indicated as the treatment modality of choice for renal cell carcinoma bone oligometatasis (20 [80%] of 25) and for adrenal oligometastases 22 (88%). No consensus or major agreement was reached regarding the appropriate schedule, but the majority of the poll (54%-58%) retained the every-other-day schedule as the optimal choice for all the investigated sites. The current ESTRO Delphi consensus might provide useful direction for the application of SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma and highlight the key areas of ongoing debate, perhaps directing future research efforts to close knowledge gaps.

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

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal metastases (PM) have been reported in approximately 1% of patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC). Outcome data are limited due to the rarity of this metastatic site. Therefore, the aim of our study is to describe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with PM treated as per clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline characteristics and outcome data of patients with PM from RCC were retrospectively collected from 18 Italian oncological referral centers adhering to the Meet-Uro group, from January 2016 to January 2023. RESULTS: We collect 81 RCC patients with PM. 78/81 received systemic treatment, 3/81 only best supportive care. First line treatment included tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI) (46/78), ImmuneOncology (IO)-TKI (26/78) and IO-IO (6/78), with different Objective Response Rate (ORR) (43.4% in TKI monotherapy group vs 50% in IO-TKI group, respectively) and Disease Control Rate (DCR) (60.8% in TKI treated patients vs. 76.9% in IO-TKI treated patients). Median PFS was 6.4 months (95%CI 4.18-14.8) in patients treated with TKI monotherapy vs 23.7 months (95%CI 11.1-NR) in patients treated with IO-TKI (p < 0.015). The median OS (mOS) was 22.7 months (95%CI 13.32 - 64.7) in the TKI monotherapy group vs 34.5 mo (95%CI NR-NR) in the IO-TKI group with 53.8% of patients alive at 1 years in the latter group, (p < 0.16). Primary refractory patients were 36.9% for TKI and 15.3% for IO-TKI. According to International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score, mPFS and mOS were consistent among risk categories. Median PFS was 36.6 months (95%CI 10.9-NR) for good risk patients compared to 10 months (95%CI 7.5-29.8) for intermediate risk and 2.96 months (95%CI 2.43-11.28) for poor risk population (p < 0.0005) whereas mOS was NR (95%CI 28.65-NR) for good risk patients compared to 35.3 months (95%CI 24.6-NA) and 12.4 months (95%CI 3.52-NR) for intermediate and poor risk population, respectively, (p < 0.0002). Only 34/78 (43.5%) received a second line treatment that was TKI (ORR 8.3% and DCR 41.6%) or IO (ORR 18.1% and DCR 40.9%). CONCLUSION: We report one of the largest case series regarding PM from RCC. Characteristics of patients suggest a more aggressive behavior of PM from mRCC. Outcome data suggest that TKI-IO as first line treatment, and TKI as second line, confirm their activity for these patients with dismal prognosis.

Impressive and Prolonged Response with Lenvatinib in a Highly Pretreated Patient with Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cancer: A Case Report.

Clear cell renal carcinoma (ccRCC) can occur in young people and could be associated with an aggressive behavior. While for the first-line treatment in metastatic disease, there is an agreement to rely on an immunotherapy (IO)-based combination regimen, no standard second-line regimens exist. Generally, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are employed, even in sequence, although no trials have demonstrated yet the best succession. Herein, we present the case of a 39-year-old male, with a very aggressive ccRCC with somatic VHL mutation and distant metastases at diagnosis. He was treated with four different lines of therapies, including TKIs, with progressive multiple tumor deposits. Lenvatinib alone as the fifth line was able to induce a remarkable and prolonged tumor shrinkage with manageable toxicities.

Significance of PD-L1 in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have broadened the metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) therapeutic scenario. The association of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) with response and survival in patients treated with ICIs is still controversial. Objectives: To evaluate the association of PD-L1 with response rate and overall survival among patients with mUC treated with ICIs. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology Meeting Libraries, and Web of Science were searched up to December 10, 2023. Study Selection: Two authors independently screened the studies. Included studies were randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials enrolling patients with mUC receiving ICIs with available overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or overall response rate (ORR) data, separated between patients with PD-L1-positive and -negative tumors. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Fixed- or random-effects models were used depending on the heterogeneity among the studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were odds ratios (ORs) for ORR and hazard ratios (HRs) for OS, comparing patients with PD-L1-positive tumors and patients with PD-L1-negative tumors. Secondary outcomes were the PFS HR between patients with PD-L1-positive and -negative tumors and OS HR between ICI arms and non-ICI arms of only randomized clinical trials. Results: A total of 14 studies were selected, comprising 5271 patients treated with ICIs (2625 patients had PD-L1-positive tumors). The ORR was 13.8% to 78.6% in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors and 5.1% to 63.2% in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, with an association between PD-L1 status and ORR favoring patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.47-2.56; P < .001). Median OS ranged from 8.4 to 24.1 months in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors and from 6.0 to 19.1 months in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors. The pooled HR showed a significant reduction for patients with PD-L1-positive tumors compared with those with PD-L1-negative tumors in the risk of death (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.89; P = .003) and risk of progression (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.69; P < .001) when ICIs were administered. PD-L1 is not likely to be a predictive biomarker of ICI response. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that PD-L1 expression is associated with improved ORR, OS, and PFS for patients with mUC who receive ICIs, but it is unlikely to be useful as a predictive biomarker. Developing predictive biomarkers is essential to select patients most likely to benefit from ICIs and avoid toxic effects and financial burden with these agents.

Avelumab Plus Intermittent Axitinib in Previously Untreated Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. The Tide-A Phase 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) plus immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) against PD1/PD-L1 are the standard first-line therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), irrespective of the prognostic class. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and safety of withdrawing VEGFR-TKI but continuing anti-PD1/PD-L1 in patients who achieve a response to their combination. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a single-arm phase 2 trial in patients with treatment-naïve mRCC with prior nephrectomy, without symptomatic/bulky disease and no liver metastases. INTERVENTION: Enrolled patients received axitinib + avelumab; after 36 wk of therapy those who achieved a tumour response interrupted axitinib and continued avelumab maintenance until disease progression. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was the rate of patients without progression 8 wk after the axitinib interruption. The secondary endpoints were the median value for progression-free (mPFS) and overall (mOS) survival and the safety in the overall population. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Seventy-nine patients were enrolled and 75 were evaluated for efficacy. A total of 29 (38%) patients had axitinib withdrawn, as per the study design, with 72% of them having no progression after 8 wk and thus achieving the primary endpoint. The mPFS of the overall population was 24 mo, while the mOS was not reached. The objective response rate was 76% (12% complete response and 64% partial response), with 19% of patients having stable disease. In the patients who discontinued axitinib, the incidence of adverse events of any grade was 59% for grade 3 and 3% for grade 4. This study was limited by the lack of a comparative arm. CONCLUSIONS: The TIDE-A study demonstrates that the withdrawal of VEGFR-TKI with ICI maintenance is feasible for selected mRCC patients with evidence of a response to the VEGFR-TKI + ICI combination employed in first-line therapy. Axitinib interruption with avelumab maintenance leads to decreased side effects and should be investigated further as a new strategy to delay tumour progression. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated whether certain patients with advanced kidney cancer treated with the fist-line combination of axitinib plus avelumab can interrupt the axitinib in case of a tumour response after 36 wk of therapy. We found that axitinib interruption improved the safety of the combination, while the maintenance with avelumab might delay tumour progression.

Initial management approach for localized/locally advanced disease is critical to guide metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Currently, several therapies are available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) but no specific clinical factors to personalize treatment. We first sought the prognostic value of duration on androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) in patients receiving androgen-receptor-signaling inhibitors (ARSI) for mCRPC. METHODS: A multicenter cohort of mCRPC patients who started ARSI between July 2011 and October 2021 was identified. Based on their initial disease burden and duration on ADT for HSPC, primary progressive (PP) men were classified into four groups: low/intermediate-risk localized disease (LOC) and high-risk localized/locally advanced disease (LAD) and short-term (ST) < 24 vs. long-term (LT) ADT ≥ 24 months, whereas de novo (DN) mHSPC were subdivided into short-time vs. long-time to CRPC. RESULTS: We included 919 mCRPC patients with a median age of 77 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 71-82)]. Median ADT duration in HSPC was 24 months (IQR = 14-40). Median follow-up was 91 months (IQR = 62-138), median OS and PFS from ARSI start were 20 (IQR 10-32) and 10 months (IQR = 5-19), respectively. In PP developing metastatic disease (n = 655, 71.3%), LOC and LAD with ST ADT had a greater than almost double-risk of death compared to LT ADT (LOC/ST: hazard ratio [HR] = 2.01; 95% CI 1.54-2.64; LAD/ST: HR = 1.73; 95% CI 1.34-2.24; p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis including age, prognostic cohort, Gleason, ECOG, radical radiotherapy and prostatectomy, groups with ST ADT were associated with worse OS compared to LT ADT (LOC/ST: HR = 1.84; 95% CI 1.38-2.45; p < 0.001; LAD/ST: HR = 1.59; 95% CI 1.21-2.10; p < 0.001), along with ECOG > 2 (HR = 1.55; 95% CI 1.06-2.26; p = 0.03). There were also similar results of PFS. Moreover, long-time to CRPC in patients with history of DN mHSPC (n = 264, 28.7%) resulted in a better OS/PFS (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.02, p = 0.064 and HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-0.99, p = 0.042, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that duration on ADT for mHSPC was significantly associated with survival in mCRPC undergoing ARSI. These findings suggest a possible connection between initial management of prostate tumour and a better prognostication in mCRPC. Prospective trials are warranted.

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.

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusion: 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.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

A phase II study evaluating the efficacy of enzalutamide and the role of liquid biopsy for evaluation of ARv7 in mCRPC patients with measurable metastases including visceral disease (Excalibur study).

Background: Up to 30% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) develop visceral metastases, which are associated with a poor prognosis. Objectives: Efficacy of enzalutamide in mCRPC patients with measurable metastases, including visceral and/or extra-regional lymph nodes. Methods: In this phase II multicenter study, patients with mCRPC and measurable metastases received enzalutamide as the first line. Primary endpoint: 3-month (mo) disease control rate (DCR) defined as the proportion of patients with complete (CR) or partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary endpoint: safety. Exploratory endpoint: the association between ARv7 splicing variants in basal circulating tumor cell (CTC)-enriched blood samples and treatment response/resistance using the AdnaTest ProstateCancerSelect kit and the AdnaTest ProstateCancer Panel AR-V7. Results: From March 2017 to January 2021, 68 patients were enrolled. One patient never started treatment. Median age: 72 years. A total of 52 patients (78%) received enzalutamide as a first line for mCRPC. The median follow-up was 32 months. At the 3-month assessment, 24 patients presented an SD, 1 patient achieved a CR, and 23 patients had a PR (3-mo-DCR of 72%). Discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), disease-related death, or disease progression occurred in 9%, 6%, and 48% of patients. All patients reported at least one grade (G) 1-2 AE: the most common were fatigue (49%) and hypertension (33%). Six G3 AEs were reported: two hypertension, one seizure, one fatigue, one diarrhea, and one headache. Basal detection of ARv7 was significantly associated with poor treatment response (p = 0.034) and a nonsignificant association (p = 0.15) was observed between ARv7 detection and response assessments. At month 3, ARv7 was detected in 57%, 25%, and 15% of patients undergoing progressive disease, SD, and PR, respectively. Conclusion: The study met its primary endpoint, showing the efficacy of enzalutamide in men with mCRPC and measurable metastatic lesions in visceral and/or lymph node sites. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03103724. First Posted: 6 April 2017. First patient enrollment: 19 April 2017.

Impact of Metastatic Site in Favorable-Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Sunitinib or Pazopanib.

BACKGROUND: Although in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients with intermediate and poor risk the benefit of combination strategies versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) has been ascertained, in those with favorable risk data are ambiguous. Herein, we investigated the impact of number and type of metastatic site in patients with favorable risk to contribute to the best therapeutic choice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicenter data regarding patients with favorable risk mRCC carcinoma receiving first-line TKIs, sunitinib or pazopanib, were retrospectively collected. We divided our population into 2 groups based on the number of metastatic sites and analyzed its impact on tumor response and efficacy outcome. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate efficacy outcomes and the log-rank test to examine differences between subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients with a median age of 69 years were included in the final analysis. Patients with 1 metastatic site, compared with patients with > 1 site, had a significantly longer overall survival (OS) (not reached vs. 66 months) and a trend, although not statistically significant, of better progression-free survival (PFS) (31 vs. 17 months). In patients with 1 metastatic site, liver involvement was correlated with worse PFS and OS at the univariate analysis (P = .01) and was confirmed as independent poor prognostic factor for PFS at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we reported a longer OS in favorable risk mRCC patients receiving TKI with only 1 metastatic site. Nevertheless, in patients with a single metastatic site, hepatic involvement correlated with worse PFS compared to other metastatic sites.

Real-world Outcome of Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma and Intermediate- or Poor-risk International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Criteria Treated by Immune-oncology Combinations: Differential Effectiveness by Risk Group?

BACKGROUND: Renal c carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most common urinary cancers worldwide, with a predicted increase in incidence in the coming years. Immunotherapy, as a single agent, in doublets, or in combination with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), has rapidly become a cornerstone of the RCC therapeutic scenario, but no head-to-head comparisons have been made. In this setting, real-world evidence emerges as a cornerstone to guide clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the outcome of patients treated with first-line immune combinations or immune oncology (IO)-TKIs for advanced RCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from 930 patients, 654 intermediate risk and 276 poor risk, were collected retrospectively from 58 centers in 20 countries. Special data such as sarcomatoid differentiation, body mass index, prior nephrectomy, and metastatic localization, in addition to biochemical data such as hemoglobin, platelets, calcium, lactate dehydrogenase, neutrophils, and radiological response by investigator's criteria, were collected. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The median follow-up was calculated by the inverse Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up time was 18.7 mo. In the 654 intermediate-risk patients, the median OS and PFS were significantly longer in patients with the intermediate than in those with the poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria (38.9 vs 17.3 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] p < 0.001, and 17.3 vs 11.6 mo, 95% CI p < 0.001, respectively). In the intermediate-risk subgroup, the OS was 55.7 mo (95% CI 31.4-55.7) and 40.2 mo (95% CI 29.6-51.6) in patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p = 0.047). PFS was 30.7 mo (95% CI 16.5-55.7) and 13.2 mo (95% CI 29.6-51.6) in intermediate-risk patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p < 0.001). In the poor-risk subgroup, the median OS and PFS did not show a statistically significant difference between IO + IO and IO + TKI. Our study presents several limitations, mainly due to its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed differences between the IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations in intermediate-risk patients. A clear association with longer PFS and OS in favor of patients who received the IO + TKI combinations compared with the IO-IO combination was observed. Instead, in the poor-risk group, we observed no significant difference in PFS or OS between patients who received different combinations. PATIENT SUMMARY: Renal cancer is one of the most frequent genitourinary tumors. Treatment is currently based on immunotherapy combinations or immunotherapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but there are no comparisons between these.In this study, we have analyzed the clinical course of 930 patients from 58 centers in 20 countries around the world. We aimed to analyze the differences between the two main treatment strategies, combination of two immunotherapies versus immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy, and found in real-life data that intermediate-risk patients (approximately 60% of patients with metastatic renal cancer) seem to benefit more from the combination of immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy than from double immunotherapy. No such differences were found in poor-risk patients. This may have important implications in daily practice decision-making for these patients.

Vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma pretreated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify evidence for use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based therapy. METHODS: This was a PRISMA-standard systematic literature review; registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255568). Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (January 28, 2021; updated September 13, 2022) to identify publications reporting efficacy/effectiveness and safety/tolerability evidence for anti-VEGF treatment in patients with RCC who had received prior CPI therapy. RESULTS: Of 2,639 publications screened, 48 were eligible and featured 2,759 patients treated in trials and 2,209 in real-world studies (RWS). Most patients with available data were treated with anti-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens (trials: 93 %; RWS: 100 %), most commonly cabozantinib, which accounted for 46 % of trial and 62 % of RWS patients in publications with available data. Collectively, there was consistent evidence of anti-VEGF treatment activity after prior CPI therapy. Activity was reported for all anti-VEGF regimens and regardless of prior CPI-based regimen. No new safety signals were detected for subsequent anti-VEGF therapy; no studies suggested increased immune-related adverse events associated with prior CPI therapy. The results were limited by data quality; study heterogeneity prohibited meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Based on the available data (most commonly for cabozantinib), anti-VEGF therapy appears to be a rational treatment choice in patients with RCC who have progressed despite prior CPI-based therapy. Results from ongoing trials of combination anti-VEGF plus CPI regimen post prior CPI therapy trials will contribute more definitive evidence. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Anticancer treatments that work by reducing levels of a substance in the body called Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor are known as anti-VEGF drugs. Reducing VEGF levels helps to reduce blood supply to tumors, which can slow the speed at which the cancer grows. Some other types of anticancer drugs that help the immune system to fight cancer cells are called checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we looked at published studies that investigated how anti-VEGF drugs work, and what side effects they cause, in people who have already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors for a type of kidney cancer called renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to summarize the available evidence to help doctors decide how best to use anti-VEGF drugs in these patients. We found 48 studies that included almost 5,000 patients. The results of the studies showed that anti-VEGF drugs have anticancer effects in people with renal cell carcinoma who had already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors. All of the VEGF-targeting drugs had anticancer effects, irrespective of what checkpoint inhibitor treatment people had received before. There were different amounts of evidence available for the different anti-VEGF drugs. The anti-VEGF cabozantinib had the largest amount of evidence. Importantly, previous checkpoint inhibitor treatment did not seem to affect the number or type of side-effects associated with anti-VEGF drugs. Results from ongoing, well-designed studies will be helpful to confirm these results. Our findings may be useful for doctors considering using anti-VEGF drugs in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have received checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

Hematological Toxicity of PARP Inhibitors in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients with Mutations of BRCA or HRR Genes: A Systematic Review and Safety Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as single agents or in combination with androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA). However, a clinically relevant adverse effect of these agents is hematological toxicity, a typical class adverse event (AE), which can lead to treatment modifications and discontinuations. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyze the risk of hematological AEs, including anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia secondary to PARPi treatments in mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meeting abstracts for clinical trials concerning the use of PARPis, both as single agents and in combination, in patients with mCRPC. The search deadline was 30 June, 2023. We analyzed the pooled incidence of all grades of and ≥ G3 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. We subsequently calculated risk ratios (RRs) for all grades of and ≥ G3 AEs of PARPis versus non-PARPis from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Eleven phase 2/3 trials with olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib administered as single agents or combined with ARTA were selected. Anemia was the most common all grades (38.6%) and ≥ G3 AE (24.9%). In the analysis of relative risk, six RCTs were included. The administration of PARPis significantly increased the risk of developing all grades of anemia (RR = 2.44), neutropenia (RR = 3.15), and thrombocytopenia (RR = 4.66) compared with non-PARPis. Similarly, a significant increase in the risk of ≥ G3 anemia (RR = 5.73) and thrombocytopenia (RR = 5.44), and a not significant increased risk of neutropenia (RR = 3.41), were detected. CONCLUSIONS: In mCRPC, PARPis increase the risk of hematological toxicity compared with other treatments, both as single agents or combined with ARTA (high-quality evidence). Clinicians should be aware of this risk and the correct management, especially with the expected increased PARPis use in mCRPC.