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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Selected Immune-Related Adverse Events Among Patients with Cancer Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: With increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) among patients with cancer, there is substantial interest in understanding clinical and economic outcomes and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). PATIENTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using Premier Healthcare Database, a U.S. national hospital discharge database, from March 1, 2015, through December 31, 2017. The database comprises more than 880 million inpatient and hospital-based outpatient encounters, with more than 200 million unique patients reported by 966 hospitals. Patients with four solid tumors known to benefit from ICI therapy were included. The list of irAEs assessed was defined a priori per American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines for irAE management. Baseline irAE-related inpatient and outpatient visits were defined as the first inpatient or hospital-based outpatient visit with discharge diagnosis of any irAE of interest following confirmed ICI usage within 90 days prior to the baseline visit. Patients were followed for 90 days after baseline irAE-related inpatient discharge date or outpatient visit date to assess irAE-related inpatient admissions, all-cause in-hospital mortality, ICI reinitiation, and to determine costs and health care resource utilization. RESULTS: Records from 673,957 patients with four tumor types were reviewed for ICI therapy. Of 13,030 patients receiving ICIs, approximately 40% experienced at least one irAE, with a total of 10,121 irAEs occurring within 90 days of the ICI visit. The most frequent (>1,000 events) irAEs were anemia, impaired ventricular function with heart failure and vasculitis, thrombocytopenia, thyroid conditions, and peripheral edema. As might be expected, compared with those with baseline irAE-related outpatient visits, patients with baseline irAE-related inpatient visits had a significantly higher percentage of irAE-related inpatient admissions (23% vs. 14%) and all-cause in-hospital mortality (22% vs. 6%) and lower reinitiation of ICI therapy (31% vs. 71%). Baseline irAE-related inpatient visits had significantly higher mean costs ($29,477 vs. $5,718) with longer hospital stays (12.6 vs. 7.8 days). CONCLUSION: Findings from a U.S. national hospital discharge database suggest that irAEs in patients treated with ICIs are common, occur in multiples and with greater frequency in those with pre-existing comorbidities. Those with inpatient admissions have poorer outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The present work addressed the knowledge gap in understanding real-world outcomes of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Patients who experienced irAEs had significantly higher baseline comorbidities and were more likely to have immune-related or immune-compromised comorbid conditions. Patients with baseline irAE-related hospitalizations were more likely to be rehospitalized and to experience in-hospital mortality and less likely to reinitiate ICI treatment. Real-world patients are more diverse than clinical trials, and clinicians should consider both the efficacy and safety profile of ICI treatments, especially for patients with comorbidity conditions. Close monitoring is needed after patients have experienced an irAE.

A Randomized Phase II Study of AGS-16C3F Versus Axitinib in Previously Treated Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: The primary endpoint of this phase II study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the investigational compound, AGS-16C3F, versus axitinib in previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was not met. Median progression-free survival, the primary endpoint, was 2.9 months with AGS-16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (HR, 1.676; 95% CI, 1.107-2.537; p = .015), per investigator assessment The safety profile for each study drug was as expected, with the most commonly reported adverse events being fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS-16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. These results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC. BACKGROUND: AGS-16C3F is a novel antibody-drug conjugate that targets cell-surface ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase 3 (ENPP3) and is conjugated to a microtubule disruptive agent. Here we present findings from a phase II study of AGS-16C3F versus axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: Patients with mRCC of any histology and disease progression during or after their last treatment regimen were randomized 1:1 to intravenous AGS-16C3F 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks or oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary objective was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) of AGS-16C3F versus axitinib (RECIST version 1.1). RESULTS: In the total population (N = 133), 63% (n = 84) of patients had completed the study at data cutoff (August 21, 2019). Median PFS was 2.9 months with AGS-16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.676; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.107-2.537; p = .015). There were no significant differences between arms in secondary efficacy endpoints, including overall survival (13.1 months, AGS-16C3F and 15.4 months, axitinib; HR, 1.079; 95% CI, 0.681-1.707; p = .747). In the safety population (n = 131), the most commonly reported adverse events were fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS-16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. The incidence of diarrhea was lower in the AGS-16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (17% vs. 48%), and ocular toxicities were more frequent in the AGS-16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (44% vs. 26%). CONCLUSION: The investigational compound, AGS-16C3F, did not meet the primary endpoint of this trial. These study results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.

The Impact of Adverse Events on Health Care Resource Utilization, Costs, and Mortality Among Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the association between adverse events (AEs) suspected to be immune-related and health care resource utilization, costs, and mortality among patients receiving programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death ligand 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy for urothelial carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, or Merkel cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using medical and pharmacy claims and enrollment information from U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees in the Optum Research Database from March 1, 2014, through April 30, 2019. Claims were linked with mortality data from the Social Security Death Index and the National Death Index. Eligible patients had at least one ICI claim between September 1, 2014, and April 30, 2019. RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounding variables, we found patients with AEs had more than double the risk of an inpatient stay (hazard ratio [HR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-2.5) and an 80% higher risk of an emergency visit (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1) than patients without AEs. Adjusted 6-month total costs were $24,301 higher among patients with an AE versus those without ($99,037 vs. $74,736; 95% CI, $18,828-29,774; p < .001). Mean ± SD AE-related medical costs averaged $2,359 ± $7,496 per patient per month, driven by inpatient visits, which accounted for 89.9% of AE-related costs. Adjusted risk of mortality was similar in patients with and without AEs. CONCLUSION: Patients with AEs had higher risks of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and higher health care costs, driven by inpatient stays, than patients without AEs. The adjusted risk of mortality was similar between the two cohorts. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) who had adverse events (AEs) had significantly higher health care costs and utilization, driven by inpatient stays, compared with patients who did not. Given this high cost associated with AEs and the differences in the side effect profile of ICIs versus traditional chemotherapy, it is important for physicians to be cognizant of these differences when treating patients with ICIs. Ongoing evaluation, earlier recognition, and more effective, multidisciplinary management of AEs may improve patient outcomes and reduce the need for costly inpatient stays.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

Phase I study of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in combination with the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Background Preclinical studies suggested synergistic anti-tumor activity when pairing mTOR inhibitors with histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors. We completed a phase I, dose-finding trial for the mTOR inhibitor everolimus combined with the HDAC inhibitor panobinostat in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) patients. We additionally investigated expression of microRNA 605 (miR-605) in serum samples obtained from trial participants. Patients and Methods Twenty-one patients completed our single institution, non-randomized, open-label, dose-escalation phase 1 trial. miR-605 levels were measured at cycle 1/day 1 (C1D1) and C2D1. Delta Ct method was utilized to evaluate miR-605 expression using U6B as an endogenous control. Results There were 3 dosing-limiting toxicities (DLTs): grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 1), grade 3 thrombocytopenia (n = 1), and grade 3 neutropenia (n = 1). Everolimus 5 mg PO daily and panobinostat 10 mg PO 3 times weekly (weeks 1 and 2) given in 21-day cycles was the recommended phase II dosing based on their maximum tolerated dose. The 6-month progression-free survival was 31% with a median of 4.1 months (95% confidence internal; 2.0-7.1). There was higher baseline expression of miR-605 in patients with progressive disease (PD) vs those with stable disease (SD) (p = 0.0112). PD patients' miR-605 levels decreased after the 1st cycle (p = 0.0245), whereas SD patients' miR-605 levels increased (p = 0.0179). Conclusion A safe and tolerable dosing regimen was established for combination everolimus/panobinostat therapy with myelosuppression as the major DLT. This therapeutic pairing did not appear to improve clinical outcomes in our group of patients with advanced ccRCC. There was differential expression of miR-605 that correlated with treatment response. Clinical trial information: NCT01582009.

Safety and efficacy of CDX-014, an antibody-drug conjugate directed against T cell immunoglobulin mucin-1 in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

CDX-014 is an antibody-drug conjugate directed against TIM-1, a surface marker highly expressed in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and ovarian carcinoma. This phase I, first-in-human trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and preliminary activity of CDX-014 in patients with advanced refractory RCC, following a dose-escalation and dose expansion design. CDX-014 was administered intravenously at doses ranging from 0.15 to 2.0 mg/kg every 2 or 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Sixteen patients received at least one dose of CDX-014. The maximum tolerated dose was not identified. Most frequent adverse grade 1 or 2 adverse events included nausea (38%), fatigue, alopecia, elevation of AST and decreased appetite (25% each). Adverse events of grade 3 or more included hyperglycemia (19%), urosepsis (6%), and one multi-organ failure (6%) responsible for one treatment-related death. Two patients discontinued therapy for adverse events including fatigue grade 2 and urosepsis grade 4. CDX-014 showed antitumor activity with one prolonged partial response and a clinical benefit rate (objective response or stable disease >6 months) of 31%. The two patients that exhibited the most marked tumor shrinkage had high TIM-1 expression on tumor tissue. Overall, CDX-014 exhibited a manageable toxicity profile and early signs of activity, supporting further evaluation of antibody-drug conjugates in patients with advanced RCC and potentially other TIM-1 expressing cancers. Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02837991 NCT02837991; July 20, 2016.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 1.2021.

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 recent updates to the guidelines, including changes to certain systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC. They also discuss the addition of a new section to the guidelines that identifies and describes the most common hereditary RCC syndromes and provides recommendations for genetic testing, surveillance, and/or treatment options for patients who are suspected or confirmed to have one of these syndromes.

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib (CheckMate 214): a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3, CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with intermediate or poor risk, previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could be used to further describe the benefit-risk profile of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled, CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by risk status into favourable, intermediate, and poor risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg/day for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), and EuroQol five dimensional three level (EQ-5D-3L) instruments. The coprimary endpoints of the trial, reported previously, were overall survival, progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients who had an objective response in those categorised as at intermediate or poor risk. PROs in all randomised participants were assessed as an exploratory endpoint; here we report this exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but is now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 847 (77%) were at intermediate or poor risk and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=425) or sunitinib (n=422). Median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 23·0-27·4). PROs were more favourable with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib throughout the first 103 weeks after baseline, with mean change from baseline at week 103 for FKSI-19 total score being 4·00 (95% CI 1·91 to 6·09) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -3·14 (-6·03 to -0·25) for sunitinib (p<0·0001), and for FACT-G total score being 4·77 (1·73 to 7·82) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -4·32 (-8·54 to -0·11) for sunitinib (p=0·0005). Significant differences were also seen for four of five FKSI-19 domains (disease-related symptoms, physical disease-related symptoms, treatment side-effects, and functional wellbeing) and FACT-G physical and functional wellbeing domains. However, there was no significant difference between the treatment groups at week 103 in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue rating scale (VAS) scores, with mean change from baseline to week 103 of 10·07 (95% CI 4·35 to 15·80) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6·40 (-1·36 to 14·16) for sunitinib (p=0·45). Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab reduced risk of deterioration in FKSI-19 total score (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·46-0·63), FACT-G total score (0·63, 0·52-0·75), and EQ-5D-3L VAS score (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63-0·89) and UK utility scores (0·67, 0·57-0·80). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab leads to fewer symptoms and better HRQoL than sunitinib in patients at intermediate or poor risk with advanced renal cell carcinoma. These results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib comes with the additional benefit of improved HRQoL. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma on the basis of studies done in clear-cell histology. The activity of cabozantinib in patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma is poorly characterised. We sought to analyse the antitumour activity and toxicity of cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We did a multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study of patients with metastatic non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with oral cabozantinib during any treatment line at 22 centres: 21 in the USA and one in Belgium. Eligibility required patients with histologically confirmed non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma who received cabozantinib for metastatic disease during any treatment line roughly between 2015 and 2018. Mixed tumours with a clear-cell histology component were excluded. No other restrictive inclusion criteria were applied. Data were obtained from retrospective chart review by investigators at each institution. Demographic, surgical, pathological, and systemic therapy data were captured with uniform database templates to ensure consistent data collection. The main objectives were to estimate the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, time to treatment failure, and overall survival after treatment. FINDINGS: Of 112 identified patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated at the participating centres, 66 (59%) had papillary histology, 17 (15%) had Xp11.2 translocation histology, 15 (13%) had unclassified histology, ten (9%) had chromophobe histology, and four (4%) had collecting duct histology. The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response across all histologies was 30 (27%, 95% CI 19-36) of 112 patients. At a median follow-up of 11 months (IQR 6-18), median time to treatment failure was 6·7 months (95% CI 5·5-8·6), median progression-free survival was 7·0 months (5·7-9·0), and median overall survival was 12·0 months (9·2-17·0). The most common adverse events of any grade were fatigue (58 [52%]), and diarrhoea (38 [34%]). The most common grade 3 events were skin toxicity (rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia; five [4%]) and hypertension (four [4%]). No treatment-related deaths were observed. Across 54 patients with available next-generation sequencing data, the most frequently altered somatic genes were CDKN2A (12 [22%]) and MET (11 [20%]) with responses seen irrespective of mutational status. INTERPRETATION: While we await results from prospective studies, this real-world study provides evidence supporting the antitumour activity and safety of cabozantinib across non-clear-cell renal cell carcinomas. Continued support of international collaborations and prospective ongoing studies targeting non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes and specific molecular alterations are warranted to improve outcomes across these rare diseases with few evidence-based treatment options. FUNDING: None.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Axitinib in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell cancer: a non-randomised, open-label, dose-finding, and dose-expansion phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies combining PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors with tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the VEGF pathway have been characterised by excess toxicity, precluding further development. We hypothesised that axitinib, a more selective VEGF inhibitor than others previously tested, could be combined safely with pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) and yield antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this ongoing, open-label, phase 1b study, which was done at ten centres in the USA, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had advanced renal cell carcinoma (predominantly clear cell subtype) with their primary tumour resected, and at least one measureable lesion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, controlled hypertension, and no previous systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma. Eligible patients received axitinib plus pembrolizumab in a dose-finding phase to estimate the maximum tolerated dose, and additional patients were enrolled into a dose-expansion phase to further establish safety and determine preliminary efficacy. Axitinib 5 mg was administered orally twice per day with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg given intravenously every 3 weeks. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib or pembrolizumab; antitumour activity was assessed in all patients who received study treatment and had an adequate baseline tumour assessment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed dose-limiting toxicity during the first two cycles (6 weeks) to estimate the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02133742. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2014, and March 25, 2015, we enrolled 11 patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma to the dose-finding phase and between June 3, 2015, and Oct 13, 2015, we enrolled 41 patients to the dose-expansion phase. All 52 patients were analysed together. No unexpected toxicities were observed. Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the 11 patients treated during the 6-week observation period (dose-finding phase): one patient had a transient ischaemic attack and two patients were only able to complete less than 75% of the planned axitinib dose because of treatment-related toxicity. At the data cutoff date (March 31, 2017), 25 (48%) patients were still receiving study treatment. Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (65%) patients; the most common included hypertension (n=12 [23%]), diarrhoea (n=5 [10%]), fatigue (n=5 [10%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=4 [8%]). The most common potentially immune-related adverse events (probably related to pembrolizumab) included diarrhoea (n=15 [29%]), increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=9 [17%]) or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (n=7 [13%]), hypothyroidism (n=7 [13%]), and fatigue (n=6 [12%]). 28 (54%) patients had treatment-related serious adverse events. At data cutoff, 38 (73%; 95% CI 59·0-84·4) patients achieved an objective response (complete or partial response). INTERPRETATION: The treatment combination of axitinib plus pembrolizumab is tolerable and shows promising antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. Whether or not the combination works better than a sequence of VEGF pathway inhibition followed by an anti-PD-1 therapy awaits the completion of a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib monotherapy (NCT02853331). FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.