Real-World Impact of Upfront Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with First-Line Immunotherapy Combinations or Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (A Sub-Analysis from the ARON-1 Retrospective Study).

BACKGROUND: About 20% of patients with renal cell carcinoma present with non-clear cell histology (nccRCC), encompassing various histological types. While surgery remains pivotal for localized-stage nccRCC, the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in metastatic nccRCC is contentious. Limited data exist on the role of CN in metastatic nccRCC under current standard of care. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study focused on the impact of upfront CN on metastatic nccRCC outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (IO) combinations or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy. METHODS: The study included 221 patients with nccRCC and synchronous metastatic disease, treated with IO combinations or TKI monotherapy in the first line. Baseline clinical characteristics, systemic therapy, and treatment outcomes were analyzed. The primary objective was to assess clinical outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Statistical analysis involved the Fisher exact test, Pearson's correlation coefficient, analysis of variance, Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and univariate/multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS: Median OS for patients undergoing upfront CN was 36.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.9-71.3) versus 20.8 (95% CI 12.6-24.8) months for those without CN (p = 0.005). Upfront CN was significantly associated with OS in the multivariate Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio 0.47 [95% CI 0.31-0.72], p < 0.001). In patients without CN, the median OS and PFS was 24.5 (95% CI 18.1-40.5) and 13.0 months (95% CI 6.6-23.5) for patients treated with IO+TKI versus 7.5 (95% CI 4.3-22.4) and 4.9 months (95% CI 3.0-8.1) for those receiving the IO+IO combination (p = 0.059 and p = 0.032, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the survival benefits of upfront CN compared with systemic therapy without CN. The study suggests that the use of IO+TKI combination or, eventually, TKI monotherapy might be a better choice than IO+IO combination for patients who are not candidates for CN regardless of IO eligibility. Prospective trials are needed to validate these findings and refine the role of CN in current mRCC management.

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.

Bone targeting agents, but not radiation therapy, improves survival in patients with bone metastases from advanced urothelial carcinoma receiving pembrolizumab: results from the ARON-2 study.

The ARON-2 study (NCT05290038) aimed to assess the real-world efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. This retrospective analysis reports the outcomes of urothelial carcinoma (UC) patients with bone metastases (BM). Medical records of patients with documented metastatic UC treated by pembrolizumab as second-line therapy were reviewed from60 institutions in 20 countries. Patients were assessed for Overall Response Rate (ORR), Progression-Free Survival (PFS), and Overall Survival (OS). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to explore the association of variables of interest with OS and PFS. 881 patients were included; of them, 263 (30%) presented BM. Median follow-up time was 22.7 months. Patients with BM showed both shorter median OS (5.9 months vs 13.1 months, p < 0.001) and PFS (3.5 months, vs 7.3 months, p < 0.001) compared to patients without BM. Patients who received bone targeted agents (BTAs) showed a significantly longer median OS (8.5 months vs 4.6 months, p = 0.003) and PFS (6.1 months vs 3.2 months, p = 0.003), while no survival benefits were observed among patients who received radiation therapy for BM during pembrolizumab treatment compared to those who did not. In multivariate analysis, performance status, concomitant liver metastases, and the lack of use of BTAs were significantly associated with worse OS and PFS. Bone involvement in UC patients treated with pembrolizumab predicts inferior survival. Poor performance status and liver metastases may further worsen outcomes, while the use of BTAs is associated with improved outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 Infection on Patients with Cancer: Experience in a Latin American Country: The ACHOCC-19 Study.

INTRODUCTION: The ACHOCC-19 study was performed to characterize COVID-19 infection in a Colombian oncological population. METHODOLOGY: Analytical cohort study of patients with cancer and COVID-19 infection in Colombia. From April 1 to October 31, 2020. Demographic and clinical variables related to cancer and COVID-19 infection were collected. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality from all causes. The association between the outcome and the prognostic variables was analyzed using logistic regression models and survival analysis with Cox regression. RESULTS: The study included 742 patients; 72% were >51 years. The most prevalent neoplasms were breast (132, 17.77%), colorectal (92, 12.34%), and prostate (81, 10.9%). Two hundred twenty (29.6%) patients were asymptomatic and 96 (26.3%) died. In the bivariate descriptive analysis, higher mortality occurred in patients who were >70 years, patients with lung cancer, ≥2 comorbidities, former smokers, receiving antibiotics, corticosteroids, and anticoagulants, residents of rural areas, low socioeconomic status, and increased acute-phase reactants. In the logistic regression analysis, higher mortality was associated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 3 (odds ratio [OR] 28.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.2-99.6); ECOG PS 4 (OR 20.89; 95% CI, 3.36-129.7); two complications from COVID-19 (OR 5.3; 95% CI, 1.50-18.1); and cancer in progression (OR 2.08; 95% CI, 1.01-4.27). In the Cox regression analysis, the statistically significant hazard ratios (HR) were metastatic disease (HR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.16-2.16), cancer in progression (HR 1.08; 95% CI, 1.24-2.61) cancer in partial response (HR 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.88), use of steroids (HR 1.44; 95% CI, 1.01-2.06), and use of antibiotics (HR 2.11; 95% CI, 1.47-2.95). CONCLUSION: In our study, patients with cancer have higher mortality due to COVID-19 infection if they have active cancer, metastatic or progressive cancer, ECOG PS >2, and low socioeconomic status. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study's findings raise the need to carefully evaluate patients with metastatic cancer, in progression, and with impaired Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status to define the relevance of cancer treatment during the pandemic, consider the risk/benefit of the interventions, and establish clear and complete communication with the patients and their families about the risk of complications. There is also the importance of offering additional support to patients with low income and residence in rural areas so that they can have more support during cancer treatment.

Consensus for Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC).

PURPOSE: International guideline recommendations may not always be extrapolated to developing countries where access to resources is limited. In metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), there have been successful drug and imaging advancements that were addressed in the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries for best-practice and limited-resource scenarios. METHODS: A total of 24 out of 300 questions addressed staging, treatment, and follow-up for patients with mCSPC both in best-practice settings and resource-limited settings. Responses were compiled and presented in percentage of clinicians supporting each response. Questions had 4-8 options for response. RESULTS: Recommendations for staging in mCSPC were split but there was consensus that chest x-ray, abdominal and pelvic computed tomography, and bone scan should be used where resources are limited. In both de novo and relapsed low-volume mCSPC, orchiectomy alone in limited resources was favored and in relapsed high-volume disease, androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel in limited resources and androgen deprivation therapy plus abiraterone in high-resource settings were consensus. A 3-weekly regimen of docetaxel was consensus among voters. When using abiraterone, a regimen of 1,000 mg plus prednisone 5 mg/d is optimal, but in limited-resource settings, half the panel agreed that abiraterone 250 mg with fatty foods plus prednisone 5 mg/d is acceptable. The panel recommended against the use of osteoclast-targeted therapy to prevent osseous complications. There was consensus that monitoring of patients undergoing systemic treatment should only be conducted in case of prostate-specific antigen elevation or progression-suggestive symptoms. CONCLUSION: The treatment recommendations for most topics addressed differed between the best-practice setting and resource-limited setting, accentuating the need for high-quality evidence that contemplates the effect of limited resources on the management of mCSPC.