TROPHY-U-01 Cohort 2: A Phase II Study of Sacituzumab Govitecan in Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Progressing After Previous Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.

PURPOSE: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a Trop-2-directed antibody-drug conjugate with an SN-38 payload, approved for patients with locally advanced (LA) or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) who progressed after platinum (PT)-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). Here, we report results from Cohort 2 of TROPHY-U-01 trial, evaluating the efficacy and safety of SG in patients with mUC. METHODS: TROPHY-U-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03547973) is a multicohort, open-label phase II study. Cohort 2 includes patients with LA or mUC who have had progression or recurrence after a CPI and were cisplatin-ineligible at study initiation. Patients received SG 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per central review; secondary end points were clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS) per central review and safety. RESULTS: Cohort 2 included 38 patients (61% male; median age 72.5 years; 66% visceral metastases [29% liver]; 50% received previous PT-based chemotherapy as previous [neo]adjuvant therapy]). At a median follow-up of 9.3 months, ORR was 32% (95% CI, 17.5 to 48.7), CBR 42% (95% CI, 26.3 to 59.2), median DOR 5.6 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 13.3), median PFS 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 8.3), and median overall survival 13.5 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 15.6). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 87% of patients, most commonly neutropenia (34%), anemia (24%), leukopenia (19%), fatigue (18%), and diarrhea (16%). CONCLUSION: SG monotherapy demonstrated a relatively high ORR with rapid responses; this was feasible with a manageable toxicity profile in cisplatin-ineligible patients who had progression after CPI therapy. Limitations include a moderate sample size and lack of random assignment. These results warrant further evaluation of SG alone and in combinations in patients with LA/mUC.

Three- and Seven-month Prostate-specific Antigen Levels as Prognostic Markers for Overall Survival in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Results from SWOG S1216, a Phase 3 Randomized Trial of Androgen Deprivation Plus Orteronel or Bicalutamide.

BACKGROUND: A robust decrease in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in response to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been evaluated as a prognostic factor in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) since 2006, but the treatment of mHSPC has since evolved to include intensified therapy. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the association of PSA levels at 3 (PSA-3mo) and 7 (PSA-7mo) mo with overall survival (OS) in patients with mHSPC treated with ADT combined with either bicalutamide or orteronel in the S1216 phase 3 clinical trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: PSA responses to treatment of patients in the S1216 trial were categorized as: complete response (CR) if PSA was ≤0.2 ng/ml, partial response if PSA was >0.2 and ≤4 ng/ml, and no response (NR) if PSA was >4 ng/ml. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A Cox analysis (adjusted for treatment arm and three stratification factors: performance status, severity of disease, and early vs late induction) was used for OS association. While PSA-7mo association was a prespecified objective, PSA-3mo association was also evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1251 and 1231 patients from the S1216 study were evaluable for PSA-3mo and PSA-7mo, respectively. A PSA-7mo CR was associated with improved OS compared with NR (HR: 0.20; p < 0.0001). A PSA-3mo CR showed a similar association to NR (HR: 0.34; p < 0.0001). The association of a PSA response with survival did not differ by treatment arm at either time point. CONCLUSIONS: The PSA-3mo and PSA-7mo responses were strongly associated with OS; taken with other emerging prognostic biomarkers, these markers may allow for early identification of patients at the highest risk of death, aid with counseling in clinical practice, and permit design of future clinical trials targeting these patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: A low prostate-specific antigen level at 3 or 7 mo after starting treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer predicts longer survival regardless of the first treatment given with androgen deprivation therapy.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

Safety and effectiveness of the radium-223-taxane treatment sequence in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a global observational study (REASSURE).

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 and taxane chemotherapy each improve survival of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Whether the radium-223-taxane sequence could extend survival without cumulative toxicity was explored. METHODS: The global, prospective, observational REASSURE study (NCT02141438) assessed real-world safety and effectiveness of radium-223 in patients with mCRPC. Using data from the prespecified second interim analysis (data cutoff, March 20, 2019), hematologic events and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in patients who were chemotherapy-naive at radium-223 initiation and subsequently received taxane chemotherapy starting ≤90 days ("immediate") or >90 days ("delayed") after the last radium-223 dose. RESULTS: Following radium-223 therapy, 182 patients received docetaxel (172 [95%]) and/or cabazitaxel (44 [24%]); 34 patients (19%) received both. Seventy-three patients (40%) received immediate chemotherapy and 109 patients (60%) received delayed chemotherapy. Median time from last radium-223 dose to first taxane cycle was 3.6 months (range, 0.3-28.4). Median duration of first taxane was 3.7 months (range, 0-22.0). Fourteen patients (10 in the immediate and four in the delayed subgroup) had grade 3/4 hematologic events during taxane chemotherapy, including neutropenia in two patients in the delayed subgroup and thrombocytopenia in one patient in each subgroup. Median OS was 24.3 months from radium-223 initiation and 11.8 months from start of taxane therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world clinical practice settings, a heterogeneous population of patients who received sequential radium-223-taxane therapy had a low incidence of hematologic events, with a median survival of 1 year from taxane initiation. Thus, taxane chemotherapy is a feasible option for those who progress after radium-223. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02141438. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Radium-223 and chemotherapy are treatment options for metastatic prostate cancer, which increase survival but may affect production of blood cells as a side effect. We wanted to know what would happen if patients received chemotherapy after radium-223. Among the 182 men treated with radium-223 who went on to receive chemotherapy, only two men had severe side effects affecting white blood cell production (neutropenia) during chemotherapy. On average, the 182 men lived for 2 years after starting radium-223 and 1 year after starting chemotherapy. In conclusion, patients may benefit from chemotherapy after radium-223 treatment without increasing the risk of side effects.

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of AGS15E Monotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Effective treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) remains an unmet need. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) providing targeted drug delivery have shown antitumor activity in this setting. AGS15E is an investigational ADC that delivers the cytotoxic drug monomethyl auristatin E to cells expressing SLITRK6, a UC-associated antigen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-arm, phase I dose-escalation and expansion trial of AGS15E in patients with mUC (NCT01963052). During dose escalation, AGS15E was administered intravenously at six levels (0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25 mg/kg), employing a continual reassessment method to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for the dose-expansion cohort. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of AGS15E in patients with and without prior chemotherapy and with prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy. Best overall response was also examined. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were recruited, including 33 patients previously treated with CPI. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (54.8%), nausea (37.6%), and decreased appetite (35.5%). Peripheral neuropathy and ocular toxicities occurred at doses of ≥0.75 mg/kg. AGS15E increased in a dose-proportional manner after single- and multiple-dose administration; accumulation was low. Five DLT occurred from 0.50 to 1.25 mg/kg. The RP2D was assessed at 1.00 mg/kg; the objective response rate (ORR) was 35.7% at this dose level. The ORR in the total population and CPI-exposed subgroup were 18.3% and 27.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DLT with AGS15E were observed at 0.75, 1.00, and 1.25 mg/kg, with an RP2D of 1.00 mg/kg being determined.

Phase II Trial of Concurrent Nivolumab and Radiation Therapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer of Older or Chemotherapy-Ineligible Patients.

PURPOSE: Bladder cancer is predominantly a disease of older individuals. Concurrent chemotherapy and radiation is a bladder-sparing strategy for management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer; however, many patients are not candidates for chemotherapy due to comorbidities or impaired performance status. We conducted a study in a chemotherapy-ineligible patient population with the objectives of evaluating the safety, efficacy, and quality-of-life effect of the combination of nivolumab and radiation therapy in patients with localized/locally advanced urothelial cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had muscle-invasive bladder cancer and were not candidates for standard chemoradiation strategy due to at least one of the following: performance status of 2, creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min, cardiac disease, neuropathy, and intolerance to previous treatment. Creatinine clearance ≥40 mL/min, normal marrow, and liver function were required. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 12 months. Nivolumab was started within 3 days of radiation therapy and administered at a dose of 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks for a maximum of 6 months. Radiation therapy was per standard of care for bladder cancer. Imaging and cystoscopy and biopsy evaluation were required at months 3, 6, and 12 and then annually until progression. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled, with a median age of 78.5 years (range, 58-95 years); 80% of patients were >70 years of age, and 8 (40%) were >80 years of age. Median creatinine clearance was 52 mL/min. Nine patients (48%) were progression free at 12 months. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months (90% CI, 7.5-23.7 months), and median overall survival was 15.6 months (90% CI, 9.1-26.1 months). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent nivolumab and radiation therapy is tolerable but demonstrated limited efficacy in an older population with multiple comorbidities. Immune correlates demonstrated that patients with baseline programmed cell death ligand 1 combined prognostic score ≥5% had numerically longer progression-free survival.

Emerging resistance vs. losing response to immune check point inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma: two differing phenomena.

The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and has dramatically improved the outcomes of patients. The use of monotherapy or combinations of ICIs targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4, as well as the addition of ICIs with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, has significantly enhanced the overall survival of mRCC patients. Despite these promising results, there remains a subset of patients who either do not respond to treatment (primary resistance) or develop resistance to therapy over time (acquired resistance). Understanding the mechanisms underlying the development of resistance to ICI treatment is crucial in the management of mRCC, as they can be used to identify new targets for innovative therapeutic strategies. Currently, there is an unmet need to develop new predictive and prognostic biomarkers that can aid in the development of personalized treatment options for mRCC patients. In this review, we summarize several mechanisms of ICI resistance in RCC, including alterations in tumor microenvironment, upregulation of alternative immune checkpoint pathways, and genetic and epigenetic changes. Additionally, we highlight potential strategies that can be used to overcome resistance, such as combination therapy, targeted therapy, and immune modulation.

Summary of Research: Adjuvant Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Placebo for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma After Nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): A Double-Blind, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial.

This is a summary of a research article reporting Part A of the CheckMate 914 study (NCT03138512; EudraCT 2016-004502-34). Following surgery to remove renal cell carcinoma (RCC), people with a high risk of the cancer returning received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (adjuvant therapy) or placebo to see if this risk was reduced. The results of this study showed that the risk of RCC returning or death was not changed with adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment compared with placebo. In addition, people treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had more side effects compared with people treated with placebo (89% versus 57%).

Challenges in conducting fractional polynomial and standard parametric network meta-analyses of immune checkpoint inhibitors for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aim: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) increasingly feature time-varying hazards to account for non-proportional hazards between different drug classes. This paper outlines an algorithm for selecting clinically plausible fractional polynomial NMA models. Methods: The NMA of four immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and one TKI therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) served as case study. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) data were reconstructed from the literature, 46 models were fitted. The algorithm entailed a-priori face validity criteria for survival and hazards, based on clinical expert input, and predictive accuracy against trial data. Selected models were compared with statistically best-fitting models. Results: Three valid PFS and two OS models were identified. All models overestimated PFS, the OS model featured crossing ICI + TKI versus TKI curves as per expert opinion. Conventionally selected models showed implausible survival. Conclusion: The selection algorithm considering face validity, predictive accuracy, and expert opinion improved the clinical plausibility of first-line RCC survival models.

Enfortumab Vedotin With or Without Pembrolizumab in Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients With Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy have limited first-line (1L) treatment options and significant need for improved therapies. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab (Pembro) individually have shown a survival benefit in urothelial cancer in second-line + la/mUC settings. Here, we present data from the pivotal trial of EV plus Pembro (EV + Pembro) in the 1L setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In Cohort K of the EV-103 phase Ib/II study, cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated la/mUC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive EV as monotherapy or in combination with Pembro. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety. There were no formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms. RESULTS: The cORR was 64.5% (95% CI, 52.7 to 75.1) and 45.2% (95% CI, 33.5 to 57.3) for patients treated with EV + Pembro (N = 76) and EV monotherapy (N = 73), respectively. The median DOR was not reached for the combination and was 13.2 months for monotherapy; 65.4% and 56.3% of patients who responded to the combination and monotherapy, respectively, maintained a response at 12 months. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients treated with the combination were maculopapular rash (17.1%), fatigue (9.2%), and neutropenia (9.2%). EV TRAEs of special interest (any grade) in the combination arm included skin reactions (67.1%) and peripheral neuropathy (60.5%). CONCLUSION: EV + Pembro showed a high cORR with durable responses as 1L treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC. Patients who received EV monotherapy had a response and safety profile consistent with previous studies. Adverse events for EV + Pembro were manageable, with no new safety signals observed.

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma to the pancreas and other sites-a multicenter retrospective study.

Background: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a heterogenous disease with poor 5-year overall survival (OS) at 14%. Patients with mRCC to endocrine organs historically have prolonged OS. Pancreatic metastases are uncommon overall, with mRCC being the most common etiology of pancreatic metastases. In this study, we report the long-term outcomes of patients with mRCC to the pancreas in two separate cohorts. Methods: We performed a multicenter, international retrospective cohort study of patients with mRCC to the pancreas at 15 academic centers. Cohort 1 included 91 patients with oligometastatic disease to the pancreas. Cohort 2 included 229 patients with multiples organ sites of metastases including the pancreas. The primary endpoint for Cohorts 1 and 2 was median OS from time of metastatic disease in the pancreas until death or last follow up. Findings: In Cohort 1, the median OS (mOS) was 121 months with a median follow up time of 42 months. Patients who underwent surgical resection of oligometastatic disease had mOS of 100 months with a median follow-up time of 52.5 months. The mOS for patients treated with systemic therapy was not reached. In Cohort 2, the mOS was 90.77 months. Patients treated with first-line (1L) VEGFR therapy had mOS of 90.77 months; patients treated with IL immunotherapy (IO) had mOS of 92 months; patients on 1L combination VEGFR/IO had mOS of 74.9 months. Interpretations: This is the largest retrospective cohort of mRCC involving the pancreas. We confirmed the previously reported long-term outcomes in patients with oligometastatic pancreas disease and demonstrated prolonged survival in patients with multiple RCC metastases that included the pancreas. In this retrospective study with heterogeneous population treated over 2 decades, mOS was similar when stratified by first-line therapy. Future research will be needed to determine whether mRCC patients with pancreatic metastases require a different initial treatment strategy. Funding: Statistical analyses for this study were supported in part by the University of Colorado Cancer Center Support Grant from the NIH/NCI, P30CA046934-30.

Management of immune-mediated toxicities and their implications in the outcomes of advanced kidney cancer.

Plain language summary Targeted immunotherapy refers to a new class of drugs that boost the body's immune system to fight against cancer. Studies have shown that immunotherapy increases the survival of kidney cancer patients, but it has certain side effects that can affect any organ in the body, including the heart, lungs, skin, bowel and thyroid. Most side effects can be managed with drugs that can suppress the immune system, such as steroids; however, some side effects can be fatal if not diagnosed in a timely manner. It is vital to have a proper understanding of the side effects of immunotherapy drugs when making decisions about treatment for kidney cancer.

Targeted immunotherapy refers to a new class of drugs that boost the body's immune system to fight against cancer. Studies have shown that immunotherapy increases the survival of kidney cancer patients, but it has certain side effects that can affect any organ in the body, including the heart, lungs, skin, bowel and thyroid. Most side effects can be managed with drugs that can suppress the immune system, such as steroids; however, some side effects can be fatal if not diagnosed in a timely manner. It is vital to have a proper understanding of the side effects of immunotherapy drugs when making decisions about treatment for kidney cancer.

Characterization and Management of Adverse Reactions From the CLEAR Study in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed significantly improved progression-free and overall survival outcomes compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the CLEAR study (NCT02811861). Here, we used CLEAR data to characterize common adverse reactions (ARs; adverse-event preferred terms grouped in accordance with regulatory authority review) associated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and review management strategies for select ARs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Safety data from the 352 patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the CLEAR study were analyzed. Key ARs were chosen based on frequency of occurrence (≥30%). Time to first onset and management strategies for key ARs were detailed. RESULTS: The most frequent ARs were fatigue (63.1%), diarrhea (61.9%), musculoskeletal pain (58.0%), hypothyroidism (56.8%), and hypertension (56.3%); grade ≥3 severity ARs that occurred in ≥5% of patients were hypertension (28.7%), diarrhea (9.9%), fatigue (9.4%), weight decreased (8.0%), and proteinuria (7.7%). Median times to first onset of all key ARs were within approximately 5 months (approximately 20 weeks) of starting treatment. Strategies for effectively managing ARs included baseline monitoring, drug-dose modifications, and/or concomitant medications. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was consistent with the known profile of each monotherapy; ARs were considered manageable with strategies including monitoring, dose modifications, and supportive medications. Proactive and prompt identification and management of ARs are important for patient safety and to support continued treatment. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT02811861.

Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo for localised renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective adjuvant therapy for patients with resected localised renal cell carcinoma represents an unmet need, with surveillance being the standard of care. We report results from part A of a phase 3, randomised trial that aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. METHODS: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 CheckMate 914 trial enrolled patients with localised clear cell renal cell carcinoma who were at high risk of relapse after radical or partial nephrectomy between 4-12 weeks before random assignment. Part A, reported herein, was done in 145 hospitals and cancer centres across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks for 12 doses plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) intravenously every 6 weeks for four doses, or matching placebo, via an interactive response technology system. The expected treatment period was 24 weeks, and treatment could be continued until week 36, allowing for treatment delays. Randomisation was stratified by TNM stage and nephrectomy (partial vs radical). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival according to masked independent central review; safety was a secondary endpoint. Disease-free survival was analysed in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population); exposure, safety, and tolerability were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (all-treated population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138512. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2017, and March 16, 2021, 816 patients were randomly assigned to receive either adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (405 patients) or placebo (411 patients). 580 (71%) of 816 patients were male and 236 (29%) patients were female. With a median follow-up of 37·0 months (IQR 31·3-43·7), median disease-free survival was not reached in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and was 50·7 months (95% CI 48·1 to not estimable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·71-1·19; p=0·53). The number of events required for the planned overall survival interim analysis was not reached at the time of the data cutoff, and only 61 events occurred (33 in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 28 in the placebo group). 155 (38%) of 404 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 42 (10%) of 407 patients who received placebo had grade 3-5 adverse events. All-cause adverse events of any grade led to discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in 129 (32%) of 404 treated patients and of placebo in nine (2%) of 407 treated patients. Four deaths were attributed to treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and no deaths were attributed to treatment with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not improve disease-free survival versus placebo in patients with localised renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. Our study results do not support this regimen for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Optimization of Radium-223 Treatment of Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Based on the Burden of Skeletal Metastasis and Clinical Parameters.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 dichloride (Ra-223) is now frequently used to treat prostate cancer that has metastasized to bone, although patient selection continues to be suboptimal for determining who will benefit most from this novel treatment modality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were treated with Ra-223 from 2012 to 2016. The burden of skeletal metastasis was determined for each using the Bone Scan Index (BSI) as a ratio of diseased to normal bone. Clinical, laboratory, and survival data were collected and examined for associations with BSI, and treatment tolerability was assessed. RESULTS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients were significantly more likely to complete the full course of treatment. Median follow-up was 31 months (range 0.7-38.8 months) and median overall survival was 15.4 months (range 9.5-20.6 months). Overall survival was significantly associated with findings on bone scans (P < .05). Patients with higher BSI tended toward poorer outcomes. Nearly half the patients with low baseline BSI survived 3 years or more following Ra-223 treatment. By contrast, only 20% of the patients with high baseline BSI lived for 1 year, and none lived for an additional 3. Baseline BSI was significantly associated with decreased hemoglobin, higher serum PSA and alkaline phosphatase levels, and treatment-associated reductions in platelet and absolute neutrophil counts. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest better outcomes to Ra-223 therapy for patients who are chemotherapy-naïve and who undergo treatment earlier in the course of their disease as reflected by low BSI and concordant laboratory parameters.

Long-term outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment of patients with advanced sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) provided efficacy benefits over sunitinib (SUN) in patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC at 42 months minimum follow-up in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, we report clinical efficacy of NIVO+IPI in sRCC after a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: In CheckMate 214, patients with clear cell advanced RCC were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses), then NIVO 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks versus SUN 50 mg once daily (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Randomized patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histological classification per local pathology report. Overall survival (OS), as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1, were evaluated in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk sRCC patients and by baseline tumor PD-L1 expression level (≥1% vs <1%). Safety outcomes are reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 139 patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC were identified (NIVO+IPI, n=74; SUN, n=65). At 5 years minimum follow-up, more patients remained on treatment with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (12% vs zero). Efficacy benefits with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were maintained with median OS of 48.6 vs 14.2 months (HR 0.46), median PFS of 26.5 vs 5.5 months (HR 0.50), and ORR 60.8% vs 23.1%. In addition, median duration of response was longer (not reached vs 25.1 months), and more patients had complete responses (23.0% vs 6.2%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively. Efficacy was better with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression, but the magnitude of OS, PFS, and ORR benefits with NIVO+IPI was greater for sRCC patients with tumor PD-L1 ≥1%. No new safety signals emerged in either arm with longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC, NIVO+IPI maintained long-term survival benefits and demonstrated durable and deep responses over SUN at minimum follow-up of 5 years, supporting NIVO+IPI as a preferred first-line therapy in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02231749.

FRACTION-RCC: nivolumab plus ipilimumab for advanced renal cell carcinoma after progression on immuno-oncology therapy.

BACKGROUND: The role and sequencing of combination immuno-oncology (IO) therapy following progression on or after first-line IO therapy has not been well-established. The Fast Real-time Assessment of Combination Therapies in Immuno-ONcology (FRACTION) program is an open-label, phase 2 platform trial designed to evaluate multiple IO combinations in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) who progressed during or after prior IO therapy. Here, we describe the results for patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For enrollment in track 2 (reported here), patients with histologically confirmed clear cell aRCC, Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and life expectancy ≥3 months who had previously progressed after IO (anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1), anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4)) therapy were eligible. Previous treatment with anti-CTLA-4 therapy plus anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy precluded eligibility for enrollment in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm. Patients were treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks for up to 2 years or until progression, toxicity, or protocol-specified discontinuation. The primary outcome measures were objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were safety and tolerability up to 2 years. Overall survival (OS) was a tertiary/exploratory endpoint. Overall, 46 patients were included with a median follow-up of 33.8 months. The ORR was 17.4% (95% CI, 7.8 to 31.4) with eight (17.4%) patients achieving partial response. Stable disease was achieved in 19 (41.3%) patients, while 14 (30.4%) had progressive disease. Median DOR (range) was 16.4 (2.1+ to 27.0+) months. The PFS rate at 24 weeks was 43.2%, and median OS was 23.8 (95% CI, 13.2 to not reached) months. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated adverse events were reported in seven (15.2%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Patients with aRCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab may derive durable clinical benefit after progression on previous IO therapies, including heavily pretreated patients, with a manageable safety profile that was consistent with previously published safety outcomes. These outcomes contribute to the knowledge of optimal sequencing of IO therapies for patients with aRCC with high unmet needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02996110.

Evaluation of tumor microenvironment and biomarkers of immune checkpoint inhibitor response in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy combinations including ipilimumab and nivolumab are now the standard of care for untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Biomarkers of response are lacking to predict patients who will have a favorable or unfavorable response to immunotherapy. This study aimed to use the OmniSeq transcriptome-based platform to develop biomarkers of response to immunotherapy. METHODS: Two cohorts of patients were retrospectively collected. These included an investigational cohort of patients with mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy from five institutions, and a subsequent validation cohort of patients with mRCC treated with combination ipilimumab and nivolumab from two institutions (Duke Cancer Institute and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center). Tissue-based RNA sequencing was performed using the OmniSeq Immune Report Card on banked specimens to identify gene signatures and immune checkpoints associated with differential clinical outcomes. A 5-gene expression panel was developed based on the investigational cohort and was subsequently evaluated in the validation cohort. Clinical outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted by retrospective chart review. Objective response rate (ORR) was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1. RESULTS: The initial investigation cohort identified 86 patients with mRCC who received nivolumab (80%, 69/86), ipilimumab/nivolumab (14%, 12/86), or pembrolizumab (6%, 5/86). A gene expression score was created using the top five genes found in responders versus non-responders (FOXP3, CCR4, KLRK1, ITK, TIGIT). The ORR in patients with high gene expression (GEhigh) on the 5-gene panel was 29% (14/48), compared with low gene expression (GElow) 3% (1/38, χ2 p=0.001). The validation cohort was comprised of 62 patients who received ipilimumab/nivolumab. There was no difference between GEhigh and GElow in terms of ORR (44% vs 38.5%), PFS (HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.89), or OS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.83). Similarly, no differences in ORR, PFS or OS were observed when patients were stratified by tumor mutational burden (high=top 20%), PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) expression by immunohistochemistry or RNA expression, or CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocytes-associated protein 4) RNA expression. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score was prognostic for OS but not PFS. CONCLUSION: A 5-gene panel that was associated with improved ORR in a predominantly nivolumab monotherapy population of patients with mRCC was not predictive for radiographic response, PFS, or OS among patients with mRCC treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab.

Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

Kidney Cancer, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as "Preferred," "Other Recommended Regimens," or "Useful in Certain Circumstances." This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.