Real-world Treatment Sequencing and Outcomes With Cabozantinib After First-line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-based Combination Therapy For Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: CARINA Study Results.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world data are limited on treatment sequencing and outcomes after first-line (1L) immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based combination treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this real-world, UK-based, retrospective study (CARINA; NCT04957160), data were obtained from hospital and electronic prescribing records. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years at aRCC diagnosis and had received 1L CPI-CPI or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-CPI combination therapy before second-line (2L) therapy including cabozantinib. We describe treatment outcomes including 1L and 2L durations of treatment (DoT) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Data from April 2015 to June 2022 were collected on 281 patients from nine UK centres. Median 1L DoT was 2.3 months for CPI-CPI therapy (n = 171) and 5.0 months for TKI-CPI therapy (n = 58). After 1L CPI-CPI or TKI-CPI therapy, median 2L DoT was 5.8 versus 4.2 months, respectively, for cabozantinib (n = 163), and 3.8 versus 2.4 months for other therapies (n = 118); median 2L OS was 15.2 and 15.3 months, respectively, for cabozantinib, and 14.6 and 24.2 months for other therapies. CONCLUSION: DoT for 2L treatment was numerically better for cabozantinib than for other therapies, and after 1L CPI-CPI therapy than after 1L TKI-CPI therapy. Median OS was similar for 2L cabozantinib and other 2L therapies, and median OS for 2L cabozantinib was similar after both 1L therapy types. These results demonstrate the antitumour effect of 2L therapies, including cabozantinib, after 1L CPI-based combination treatment, regardless of whether 1L CPI-CPI or TKI-CPI therapy is used.

Implications of bone metastasis on response to systemic therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Bone metastases negatively affect prognosis in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We conducted a systematic literature review to identify clinical trial publications including patients with aRCC with and without bone metastases. METHODS: The review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta­Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022355436). MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched (September 2, 2022) to identify publications reporting efficacy and safety outcomes for patients with/without bone metastasis from clinical trials of systemic RCC therapies. Risk of bias was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Of 526 publications screened, 19 were eligible: seven (from five studies) reported phase 3 trials, six reported phase 2 trials, one reported phase 1b/2 trials, and five were pooled analyses. Five publications reported moderate-quality evidence, while 14 were graded as low- or very low-quality evidence, suggesting a high potential for uncertainty. Five studies reported benefits of investigational therapies versus comparators in patients with and without bone metastases; these studies included cabozantinib, nivolumab, cabozantinib plus nivolumab, and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab treatment arms. Data were also available for nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Bone metastases were consistently associated with poor prognosis in patients with aRCC. Preliminary data support the hypothesis that therapies targeting pathways implicated in the development of bone metastases may be beneficial, and warrant further investigation. However, data to support treatment decision-making are lacking. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the need for clinical data to assist in defining the optimal treatment for patients with aRCC and bone metastasis.