First-line immunotherapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an updated network meta-analysis including triplet therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the differential efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combined therapies among patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), as recently, the efficacy of triplet therapy comprising nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib has been published. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three databases were searched in December 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysing oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC treated with first-line ICI-based combined therapies. We performed network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORRs), in patients with intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC; we also assessed treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, seven RCTs were included in the meta-analyses and NMAs. Treatment ranking analysis revealed that pembrolizumab + lenvatinib (99%) had the highest likelihood of improved PFS, followed by nivolumab + cabozantinib (79%), and nivolumab + ipilimumab + cabozantinib (77%). Notably, compared to nivolumab + cabozantinib, adding ipilimumab to nivolumab + cabozantinib did not improve PFS (hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.43). Regarding ORRs, treatment ranking analysis also revealed that pembrolizumab + lenvatinib had the highest likelihood of providing better ORRs (99.7%). The likelihoods of improved PFS and ORRs of pembrolizumab + lenvatinib were true in both International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses confirmed the robust efficacy of pembrolizumab + lenvatinib as first-line treatment for patients with intermediate or poor IMDC risk mRCC. Triplet therapy did not result in superior efficacy. Considering both toxicity and the lack of mature overall survival data, triplet therapy should only be considered in selected patients.

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.

Updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma with extended follow-up data.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapies are the recommended first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, no head-to-head phase-3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of different ICI-based combination therapies. Here, we compared the efficacy of various first-line ICI-based combination therapies in patients with mRCC using updated survival data from phase-3 RCTs. Three databases were searched in June 2023 for RCTs that analyzed oncologic outcomes in mRCC patients treated with ICI-based combination therapies as first-line treatment. A network meta-analysis compared outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR) rate. Subgroup analyses were based on the International mRCC Database Consortium risk classification. The treatment ranking analysis of the entire cohort showed that nivolumab + cabozantinib (81%) had the highest likelihood of improving OS, followed by nivolumab + ipilimumab (75%); pembrolizumab + lenvatinib had the highest likelihood of improving PFS (99%), ORR (97%), and CR (86%). These results remained valid even when the analysis was limited to patients with intermediate/poor risk, except that nivolumab + ipilimumab had the highest likelihood of achieving CR (100%). Further, OS benefits of ICI doublets were not inferior to those of ICI + tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations. Recommendation of combination therapies with ICIs and/or tyrosine kinase inhibitors based on survival benefits and patient pretreatment risk classification will help advance personalized medicine for mRCC.

Role of clinicopathological variables in predicting recurrence and survival outcomes after surgery for non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents 2% of all diagnosed malignancies worldwide, with disease recurrence affecting 20% to 40% of patients. Existing prognostic recurrence models based on clinicopathological features continue to be a subject of controversy. In this meta-analysis, we summarized research findings that explored the correlation between clinicopathological characteristics and post-surgery survival outcomes in non-metastatic RCC patients. Our analysis incorporates 99 publications spanning 140 568 patients. The study's main findings indicate that the following clinicopathological characteristics were associated with unfavorable survival outcomes: T stage, tumor grade, tumor size, lymph node involvement, tumor necrosis, sarcomatoid features, positive surgical margins (PSM), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), early recurrence, constitutional symptoms, poor performance status (PS), low hemoglobin level, high body-mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension. All of which emerged as predictors for poor recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival. Clear cell (CC) subtype, urinary collecting system invasion (UCSI), capsular penetration, perinephric fat invasion, renal vein invasion (RVI) and increased C-reactive protein (CRP) were all associated with poor RFS. In contrast, age, sex, tumor laterality, nephrectomy type and approach had no impact on survival outcomes. As part of an additional analysis, we attempted to assess the association between these characteristics and late recurrences (relapses occurring more than 5 years after surgery). Nevertheless, we did not find any prediction capabilities for late disease recurrences among any of the features examined. Our findings highlight the prognostic significance of various clinicopathological characteristics potentially aiding in the identification of high-risk RCC patients and enhancing the development of more precise prediction models.

Metastatic Translocated Renal Cell Carcinoma in a Kidney Transplant Patient - a Case Report and Review of the Literature.

TFEB-altered renal cell carcinomas are rare tumours. Here, we report the exceptional case of such a tumour in the setting of solid organ transplantation and with already metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. The primary tumour occurred in the native kidney and only focally showed biphasic morphology whereas the metastasis, among others to the transplant kidney, showed nonspecific, albeit different morphology, but both had consistent TFEB translocation. Treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab together with the multi-kinase inhibitor lenvatinib achieved partial response 14 months after diagnosis.

Impact of Prior Cytoreductive Nephrectomy on Efficacy in Patients with Synchronous Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Avelumab plus Axitinib or Sunitinib: Post Hoc Analysis from the JAVELIN Renal 101 Phase 3 Trial.

Data on the effects of prior cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with synchronous metastases (M1 disease) before immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment are limited. In this post hoc analysis of treatment-naive patients with advanced RCC from the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, we assessed efficacy outcomes in the avelumab + axitinib and sunitinib arms in patients who were initially diagnosed with M1 disease (n = 412) grouped by prior CN (yes vs no). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression, and objective response rates (ORRs) were analyzed using logistic regression. After adjusting for imbalances in baseline variables, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS in the prior CN versus no prior CN subgroup was 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.16) in the avelumab + axitinib arm, and 1.15 (95% CI 0.77-1.70) in the sunitinib arm. The corresponding HRs for OS were 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.93) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.55-1.34), and the odds ratios for ORR were 2.67 (95% CI 1.32-5.41) and 2.02 (95% CI 0.82-4.94), respectively. Prospective studies of the potential benefits of CN and its appropriate timing in patients receiving first-line treatment with ICI-containing combinations are warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study looked at patients with kidney cancer whose disease had already spread outside the kidneys when it was first detected. We found that patients whose kidney had been removed before starting treatment with avelumab + axitinib had better outcomes than those whose kidney had not been removed. For patients treated with sunitinib, the results were more similar between the groups with and without prior kidney removal. However, statistical tests did not find any significant differences. The JAVELIN Renal 101 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02684006.

Real-World Results of Cabozantinib Given as Alternative Schedule in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The multikinase-inhibitor Cabozantinib is a widely used treatment strategy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), either in combination with the programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab or as monotherapy. Cabozantinib is given continuously at a dose of 60 mg once daily when used as a single agent and at 40 mg when combined with nivolumab. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE's) were shown to occur frequently. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in patients with mRCC. Patients were treated in various lines. Furthermore, we analyzed the impact of an alternative treatment schedule in patients not able to maintain continuous dosing. PATIENTS: This is a single center retrospective study from the Medical University of Vienna. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall response rates (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated for the entire cohort, by treatment line and by treatment schedule. RESULTS: Between January 2014 until April 2021, 71 patients received cabozantinib. Sixty-seven patients were eligible for full evaluation. By IMDC criteria, 32.4%, 59.2%, and 8.5% were classified as favorable, intermediate and poor risk respectively. Cabozantinib was offered as a 2nd-line or 3rd-line treatment in 38.0% and 32.4% of patients, respectively. An alternative treatment schedule was offered in 39.1% of patients. Objective responses were found in 43.3% (CR 6%) of patients and the median PFS was 10.8 months (95% CI: 5.5-16.2). When compared to continuous dosing, an alternative treatment schedule was associated with longer PFS (12.2 months (95% CI: 0-25.5) vs. 6.1 months (95% CI: 0.37-11.8) (P = .014, HR 0.46 (95% CI: 0.24-0.86), respectively) and a lower frequency and severity of TRAE's. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in real world is comparable to what has been observed in the pivotal trials, irrespective of the treatment line. An alternative schedule may further improve efficacy and safety.

Discontinuation of Immune-oncology Combinations due to Immune-related Adverse Events in Patients With Advanced Renal Cancers.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) treated with immune-oncology (IO) drugs may need to discontinue the treatment when severe immune-related adverse events (irAE) occur; however, the impact of discontinuation on survival remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter analysis using a database of 183 aRCC patients treated with first-line IO drugs combination. The patients were divided into two groups according to the necessity of discontinuation due to irAEs. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazard models determined the predictive factors on OS. RESULTS: Among a total of 135 patients who experienced irAE, 38 patients had to discontinue and 52 continued the treatment while treating irAE. When compared to patients who were able to continue treatment, discontinuation was associated with significantly higher rates of IO-IO doublet use, severe irAE (grade ≥3), steroid use, and the occurrence of immune-related pneumonitis (p=0.03, p<0.001, p<0.001, and p=0.02, respectively). The objective response rates were comparable between the two groups (discontinuation 55.6% vs. no discontinuation 56.0%, p=0.7). On univariate analysis, patients who discontinued had a significantly worse OS when compared to those who continued treatment (p=0.02). On the contrary, on multivariate analysis treatment discontinuation was not associated with poor OS (HR=1.1, p=0.9). CONCLUSION: Treatment discontinuation due to irAE was not associated with poor prognosis in aRCC patients treated with ICI-based combination therapy. Treatment discontinuation may be a reasonable treatment option for well-selected patients, specifically for those who experienced good treatment responses.

Tailored immunotherapy approach with nivolumab with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab as immunotherapeutic boost in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (TITAN-RCC): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is approved as first-line regimen for intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and nivolumab monotherapy as second-line therapy for all risk groups. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination as an immunotherapeutic boost after no response to nivolumab monotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk and poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: TITAN-RCC is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, done at 28 hospitals and cancer centres across Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk or poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were formerly untreated (first-line population) or pretreated with one previous systemic therapy (anti-angiogenic or temsirolimus; second-line population) were eligible. Patients had to have a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70 and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). Patients started with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks. On early progressive disease (week 8) or non-response at week 16, patients received two or four doses of intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) boosts (once every 3 weeks), whereas responders continued with intravenous nivolumab (240 mg, once every 2 weeks), but could receive two to four boost doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for subsequent progressive disease. The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study medication; safety was also assessed in this population. An objective response rate of more than 25% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show improvement, on the basis of results from the pivotal phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02917772, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 28, 2016, and Nov 30, 2018, 207 patients were enrolled and all received nivolumab induction (109 patients in the first-line group; 98 patients in the second-line group). 60 (29%) of 207 patients were female and 147 (71%) were male. 147 (71%) of 207 patients had intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma and 51 (25%) had poor-risk disease. After median follow-up of 27·6 months (IQR 10·5-34·8), 39 (36%, 90% CI 28-44; p=0·0080) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 31 (32%, 24-40; p=0·083) of 98 patients in the second-line group had a confirmed objective response for nivolumab with and without nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Confirmed response to nivolumab at week 8 or 16 was observed in 31 (28%) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 18 (18%) of 98 patients in the second-line group. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (reported in ≥5% of patients) were increased lipase (15 [7%] of 207 patients), colitis (13 [6%]), and diarrhoea (13 [6%]). Three deaths were reported that were deemed to be treatment-related: one due to possible ischaemic stroke, one due to respiratory failure, and one due to pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: In treatment-naive patients, nivolumab induction with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts significantly improved the objective response rate compared with that reported for nivolumab monotherapy in the CheckMate-025 trial. However, overall efficacy seemed inferior when compared with approved upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For second-line treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab could be a rescue strategy on progression with approved nivolumab monotherapy. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Association between age and efficacy of first-line immunotherapy-based combination therapies for mRCC: a meta-analysis.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients stratified by chronological age. Methods: According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, hazard ratios for overall survival (OS) from randomized controlled trials were synthesized. Results: Five RCTs were eligible for meta-analyses. ICI-based combinations significantly improved OS compared with sunitinib alone, both in younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients, whereas the OS benefit was significantly better in younger patients (p = 0.007). ICI-based combinations did not improve OS in patients aged ≥75 years. Treatment rankings showed age-related differential recommendations regarding improved OS. Conclusion: OS benefit from first-line ICI-based combinations was significantly greater in younger patients. Age-related differences could help enrich shared decision-making.

Scientists have found a special way to treat a type of cancer called metastatic renal cell carcinoma. They use a combination of medicines that help the body's immune system fight cancer. These treatments are very effective and recommended as the first choice for patients with this type cancer. However, as people get older, their immune systems may not work as well. Studies looking at how these treatments work in different age groups, and it was discovered that these treatments improved the chances of survival for all patients, no matter their age. However, they also noticed that younger patients got even more benefits from the treatments. Because of these discoveries, doctors can now make better decisions about which treatment to use for patients with this type of cancer, depending on patient age.

Assessing the Performance of a Novel Stool-Based Microbiome Test That Predicts Response to First Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Multiple Cancer Types.

The intestinal microbiome is by now an undebatable key player in the clinical outcome of ICI therapies. However, no microbiome profiling method to aid therapy decision is yet validated. We conducted a multi-centric study in patients with stage III/IV melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC receiving ICI treatment. The stool microbiome profile of 63 patients was analyzed with BiomeOne®, a microbiome-based algorithm that anticipates whether a patient will achieve clinical benefit with ICIs prior to therapy initiation. Classification of patient samples as Rs and NRs was achieved with a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 50% in this validation cohort. An ICI-favorable response was characterized by an intestinal microbiome rich in bacteria such as Oscillospira sp., Clostridia UCG-014, Lachnospiraceae UCG-010 sp., Prevotella copri, and a decrease in Sutterella sp., Lactobacillales, and Streptococcus sp. Patients who developed immune-related adverse events (irAEs) had an overall increased microbial diversity and richness, and a stool microbiome depleted in Agathobacter. When compared with the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression test in the subcohort of NSCLC patients (n = 38), BiomeOne® exhibited a numerically higher sensitivity (78.6%) in identifying responders when compared with the PD-L1 test (67.9%). This study provides an evaluation of BiomeOne®, the first microbiome-based test for prediction of ICI response, to achieve market authorization. Validation with further indications and expansion to other microbiome-based interventions will be essential to bring microbiome-based diagnostics into standard clinical practice.

Impact of sex on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in kidney and urothelial cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To analyze and summarize the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) alone or in combination therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and urothelial carcinoma (UC) stratified by sex. METHODS: Three databases were queried in October 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing RCC and UC patients treated with ICIs. We analyzed the association between sex and the efficacy of ICIs in RCC and UC patients across several clinical settings. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival for the metastatic setting and disease-free survival (DFS) for the adjuvant setting. RESULTS: Overall, 16 RCTs were included for meta-analyses and network meta-analyses. In the first-line treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC) and UC (mUC) patients, ICI-based combination therapies significantly improved OS compared to the current standard of care, regardless of sex. Adjuvant ICI monotherapy reduced the risk of disease recurrence in female patients with locally advanced RCC (pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.93) but not in male patients, and, conversely, in male patients with muscle-invasive UC (pooled HR: 0.80, 95%CI 0.68-0.94) but not in female patients. Treatment ranking analyses in the first-line treatment of mRCC and mUC showed different results between sexes. Of note, regarding adjuvant treatment for RCC, pembrolizumab (99%) had the highest likelihood of improved DFS in males, whereas atezolizumab (84%) in females. CONCLUSIONS: OS benefit of first-line ICI-based combination therapy was seen in mRCC and mUC patients regardless of sex. Sex-based recommendations for ICI-based regimens according to the clinical setting may help guide clinical decision-making.

Radical Nephrectomy After Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have led to substantial changes in systemic treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). For patients whose metastases respond to upfront ICI therapy, deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) may confer a survival advantage. Further data from ongoing trials are awaited regarding the role of deferred versus immediate CN for mRCC in the ICI era. PATIENT SUMMARY: The first-line treatment currently recommended for kidney cancer that has spread to other sites is immunotherapy. For patients who experience a good response to this treatment, surgical kidney removal to control the primary tumor may have a survival benefit. More evidence from clinical trials is needed to confirm the efficacy of this approach.

LITESPARK-011: belzutifan plus lenvatinib vs cabozantinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma after anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy.

The first-in-class, small molecule HIF-2α inhibitor, belzutifan, has demonstrated promising antitumor activity in previously treated patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). HIF-2α also regulates VEGF expression and is involved in resistance to anti-VEGF therapy. This study describes the rationale and design for a randomized, phase III study evaluating efficacy and safety of belzutifan plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) lenvatinib versus the TKI cabozantinib in patients with advanced RCC progressing after anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in the first- or second-line setting or as adjuvant therapy. Considering the unmet need for effective and tolerable treatment of advanced RCC following immune checkpoint inhibitors, belzutifan plus lenvatinib may have a positive benefit/risk profile. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04586231 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Psychological Distress in Patients Treated for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review.

(1) Background: The incidence of psychological distress and its impact on renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients is unclear. Our aim was to analyze the literature regarding the prevalence of psychological distress and its impact on patients with non-metastatic or metastatic RCC; (2) Methods: A systematic search of five databases was performed. Studies were considered eligible if they included patients with RCC, had a prospective or retrospective design, and assessed anxiety, depression, or psychological distress at any time during treatment or follow-up. Exclusion criteria: no treatment for RCC, or not providing data for RCC patients; (3) Results: A total of 15 studies were included. Reported psychological distress was up to 77% and the prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms were up to 77.6% and 68.3% in patients with non-metastatic RCC. There was no association of depression with overall survival (OS) in patients with non-metastatic RCC treated by radical nephrectomy; on the contrary, in patients with metastatic disease, depression had an impact on OS. Limitations are related to the quality of the included studies; (4) Conclusions: Patients with RCC reported a high level of psychological distress like other cancer patients. It seems that for patients with localized disease, psychological distress does not impact OS, while it does in those with metastatic disease.

Serum parameters as prognostic biomarkers in a real world cancer patient population treated with anti PD-1/PD-L1 therapy.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are regarded as a standard of care in multiple malignancies. We hypothesized that serum parameters are of prognostic value in ICI treated patients suffering from solid tumours. METHODS: Data from 114 patients treated with ICIs for solid malignancies from 2015 to 2019 at the Medical University of Vienna were collected retrospectively. Data included baseline characteristics, cancer type, serum parameters such as lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), albumin (Alb) and lymphocyte counts as well as overall survival (OS) and progression free survival. Additionally, the Gustave Roussy Immune Score (GRIm score) and the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) were calculated. Cox regression models including time-dependent effects and strata for tumour type were used. Prognostic factors were pre-selected using a relaxed LASSO approach. RESULTS: The majority of patients were male (64.9%). The most common cancer types were non-small cell lung cancer (30.7%) and renal cell carcinoma (21.9%). Increased LDH and CRP were associated with poor 6-month OS (Hazard ratios (HR)=1.16 and 1.06 per 20% LDH/CRP increase; 95% CI 1.07-1.26 and 95% CI 1.03-1.09, respectively; p < .001). Both GRIm Score and GPS had a significant influence on OS (GRIm: HR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.72-4.69; p < .001 for high vs. low; GPS HR 3.57, 95% CI 1.76-7.25; p < .001 for poor vs. good). The proportion of explained variation (PEV) of our full multivariable model was significantly higher compared to the GRIm and GPS (PEV = 29.5% vs. 14.8% and 14.65%). When grouped into quartiles according to the individual 8-weeks change, both increased LDH and CRP correlated with poor OS (LDH (p=.001) and CRP (p < .001)). CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis suggest that serum parameters might have prognostic value for the outcome of cancer patients treated with ICI, regardless of the tumour type.Key messagesIn this retrospective analysis, 114 patients with solid tumours were included. The results of this analysis point out that pre-treatment LDH, CRP and albumin levels are strongly prognostic for a poor 6-month OS.In addition to that, a high GRIm-score and poor GPS were associated with a worse OS (GRIm: HR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.72-4.69; p < .001 for high vs. low; GPS HR = 3.57, 95% CI 1.76-7.25; p < .001 for poor vs. good).Pre-treatment serum parameters might have prognostic value for the outcome of cancer patients treated with ICI, regardless of the tumour type.

Hematological prognosticators in metastatic renal cell cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-analysis.

Aim: We aimed to assess the prognostic value of pretreatment hematological biomarkers in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched for articles according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Results: Fifteen studies comprising 1530 patients were eligible for meta-analysis. High levels of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase were significantly associated with worse progression-free survival. High NLR and PLR were significantly associated with worse overall survival. Conclusion: High pretreatment NLR and PLR appear to be hematological prognostic factors of progression and overall mortality in mRCC patients treated with ICIs. These findings might help in the design of correlative biomarker studies to guide the clinical decision-making in the immune checkpoint inhibitor era.

Identifying the predictive/prognostic factors that can be applied to daily clinical practice is mandatory to facilitate the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Some pretreatment hematological markers used in daily clinical practice appear to be prognostic factors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We believe that the findings of the present meta-analysis might help researchers to design prospective correlative biomarker studies to guide clinical decision-making in the immunotherapy era.

Recent pharmacological approaches for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Therapies combining either two immune check-point inhibitors (ICIs) or an ICI and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) have been shown to improve overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORR) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); moreover, unprecedented rates of complete remission (CR) have been reported. AREAS COVERED: Among six randomized trials of ICI combinations, four have outperformed the TKI sunitinib in terms of OS. The CheckMate 214 trial investigated the combination of nivolumab (a programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] inhibitor) and ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 [CTLA-4)] inhibitor). Three other trials evaluated combinations of an ICI and a TKI. These combinations are: 1) pembrolizumab (PD-1 inhibitor) plus axitinib, 2) nivolumab plus cabozantinib, and 3) pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib. This short review addresses the findings of these trials, comparing outcomes and discussing the challenges of decision-making in clinical practice. EXPERT OPINION: Not all patients benefit from ICI combinations. Predictive biomarkers and new therapeutic approaches are urgently needed to overcome treatment failures. A growing understanding of immune escape mechanisms and the interplay between the immune response and the gut microbiota may offer additional rescue strategies beyond ICIs and TKIs.

The effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with and without previous cytoreductive nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-combination therapies have radically altered the treatment landscape in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). No phase 3 trials have assessed the impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for efficacy in mRCC patients treated with ICI-combination therapy. We aimed to assess the role of ICI-combination therapy based on CN status. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for articles published until June 2021. Studies comparing overall and/or progression-free survival (OS/PFS) in mRCC patients treated with ICI combination-therapy were deemed eligible. RESULTS: Six studies met the eligibility criteria. ICI-combination therapy was associated with significantly better OS/PFS than sunitinib in patients who had undergone CN (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.77/HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.74, respectively; both P < 0.001), and in those who had not (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.85/HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.77, respectively; both P < 0.001). Although the OS and PFS benefits of ICI-combination therapy were larger in those undergoing CN, the HR for OS and PFS indicated that ICI-combination therapy's treatment effect did not differ substantially with or without CN. In network meta-analyses, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was the most effective regimen in those undergoing CN, and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib for those not undergoing CN. CONCLUSION: The effect of ICI combination therapy did not differ between mRCC patients undergoing and not undergoing CN. As each ICI combination regimen varied widely in its effect in patients undergoing and not undergoing CN, CN may contribute to better treatment decision-making for ICI-combination therapy recipients.