A Pooled Analysis of 3 Phase II Trials of Salvage Nivolumab/Ipilimumab After Nivolumab in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has demonstrated improved survival for treatment-naïve advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A series of clinical trials evaluated the effect of salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients without an objective response to nivolumab. Given the size and heterogeneity of these studies, we performed a pooled analysis to better inform the activity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab after nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients included those with advanced clear cell RCC having received no prior immunotherapy. The primary objective was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator-assessment. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The analysis included 410 patients with clear cell RCC, of whom 340 (82.9%) had IMDC intermediate/poor risk disease, and 137 (33.4%) had prior treatment. The 16-18-week ORR to nivolumab prior to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 22.7% (n = 93), and best ORR to nivolumab was 25.1% (n = 103). Two hundred and thirty (56.1%) patients treated with nivolumab received nivolumab plus ipilimumab at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 9-19) after initiation of nivolumab [27.0% (n = 62) with stable disease and 73.0% (n = 168) with progressive disease to nivolumab]. The ORR to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 12.6% (n = 29). Six-month PFS on nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 37% (95% CI, 27-47). Median follow-up was 34.3 months and 3-year OS was 59% (95% CI, 53-64) from nivolumab start. CONCLUSION: A small subset of patients lacking a response to nivolumab derive benefit from salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab. When possible, both drugs should be given in concomitantly, rather in an adaptive fashion.

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a German retrospective real-world analysis.

Aim: This study assessed real-world treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in Germany. Materials & methods: Patients diagnosed with mUC from 2015 to 2019 were identified in two claims databases: AOK PLUS and GWQ. Results: 3226 patients with mUC were analyzed; 1286 (39.9%) received systemic treatment within 12 months of diagnosis (platinum-based chemotherapy: 64.2%). Factors associated with receiving treatment were: younger age, male sex, less comorbidity and recent diagnosis. In AOK PLUS and GWQ populations, unadjusted median overall survival (interquartile range) from diagnosis in treated patients was 13.7 (6.8-32.9) and 13.8 (7.1-41.7) months, and in untreated patients was 3.0 (1.2-10.8) and 3.6 (1.2-18.8) months, respectively. Conclusion: A significant proportion of patients with mUC in Germany receive no systemic treatment.

What is this article about? This article reports the results from a study in Germany between 2015 and 2019 that investigated how advanced bladder cancer that has spread to other organs was treated and how long people lived after diagnosis. The study looked at systemic therapies, which means treatments that affect the entire body.What were the results? Only 40% of people diagnosed with advanced bladder cancer received systemic treatment within the first 12 months. Of those who did receive systemic treatment, the majority received combination therapy that included a chemotherapy drug containing platinum (64%). Systemic treatment was more likely to be given to people who were younger, less sick, male, or more recently diagnosed. After 12 months, 56% of treated people were still alive, compared with 26% of people without treatment. On average, people who received systemic treatment lived for about 14 months, while people without systemic treatment lived for only 3 to 4 months.What do the results of the study mean? Many people with advanced bladder cancer in Germany do not receive systemic treatment. People who receive treatment are likely to live longer than those who do not receive treatment.

Tailored immunotherapy approach with nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma after platinum-based chemotherapy (TITAN-TCC): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is used after platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Studies suggest improved outcomes for dual checkpoint inhibition with high ipilimumab doses. We aimed to examine the safety and activity of nivolumab induction and high-dose ipilimumab as an immunotherapeutic boost as a second-line treatment for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: TITAN-TCC is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial done at 19 hospitals and cancer centres in Germany and Austria. Adults aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial cancer of the bladder, urethra, ureter, or renal pelvis were eligible. Patients had to have progression during or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and up to one more second-line or third-line treatment, a Karnofsky Performance Score of 70 or higher, and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. After four doses of intravenous nivolumab 240 mg induction monotherapy every 2 weeks, patients with a partial or complete response at week 8 continued maintenance nivolumab, whereas those with stable or progressive disease (non-responders) at week 8 received a boost of two or four doses of intravenous nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients who subsequently had progressive disease during nivolumab maintenance also received a boost, using this schedule. The primary endpoint was the confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate in the intention-to-treat population and had to exceed 20% for the null hypothesis to be rejected (based on the objective response rate with nivolumab monotherapy in the CheckMate-275 phase 2 trial). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03219775, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 8, 2019, and Feb 15, 2021, 83 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma were enrolled and all received nivolumab induction treatment (intention-to-treat population). The median age of enrolled patients was 68 years (IQR 61-76), and 57 (69%) were male and 26 (31%) were female. 50 (60%) patients received at least one boost dose. A confirmed investigator-assessed objective response was recorded in 27 (33%) of 83 patients in the intention-to-treat population, including six (7%) patients who had a complete response. This objective response rate was significantly higher than the prespecified threshold of 20% or less (33% [90% CI 24-42]; p=0·0049). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were immune-mediated enterocolitis (nine [11%] patients) and diarrhoea (five [6%] patients). Two (2%) treatment-related deaths were reported, both due to immune-mediated enterocolitis. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts in early non-responders and patients who progress late significantly improved objective response rate after previous platinum-based chemotherapy compared with the rate reported with nivolumab in the CheckMate-275 trial. Our study provides evidence for the added value of high-dose ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and suggests a potential role for the combination as a rescue strategy in platinum-pretreated patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

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.

A paired-kidney allocation study found superior survival with HLA-DR compatible kidney transplants in the Eurotransplant Senior Program.

The Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) has expedited the chance for elderly patients with kidney failure to receive a timely transplant. This current study evaluated survival parameters of kidneys donated after brain death with or without matching for HLA-DR antigens. This cohort study evaluated the period within ESP with paired allocation of 675 kidneys from donors 65 years and older to transplant candidates 65 years and older, the first kidney to 341 patients within the Eurotransplant Senior DR-compatible Program and 334 contralateral kidneys without (ESP) HLA-DR antigen matching. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates and competing risk analysis to assess all cause mortality and kidney graft failure, respectively. The log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression were used for comparisons. Within ESP, matching for HLA-DR antigens was associated with a significantly lower five-year risk of mortality (hazard ratio 0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.53-0.95) and significantly lower cause-specific hazards for kidney graft failure and return to dialysis at one year (0.55; 0.35-0.87) and five years (0.73; 0.53-0.99) post-transplant. Allocation based on HLA-DR matching resulted in longer cold ischemia (mean difference 1.00 hours; 95% confidence interval: 0.32-1.68) and kidney offers with a significantly shorter median dialysis vintage of 2.4 versus 4.1 yrs. in ESP without matching. Thus, our allocation based on HLA-DR matching improved five-year patient and kidney allograft survival. Hence, our paired allocation study suggests a superior outcome of HLA-DR matching in the context of old-for-old kidney transplantation.

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.

German S3 Evidence-Based Guidelines on Focal Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: The First Evidence-Based Guidelines on Focal Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Focal therapy (FT) is an option to treat localized prostate cancer (PCa) and preserve healthy prostate tissue in order to reduce known side effects from primary whole-gland treatment. The available FT modalities are manifold. Until now, national and international PCa guidelines have been cautious to propose recommendations regarding FT treatment since data from prospective controlled trials are lacking for most FT modalities. Moreover, none of the international guidelines provides a separate section on FT. In this purpose, we provide a synopsis of the consensus-based German S3 guidelines for a possible international use. SUMMARY: The recently published update of the German S3 guidelines, an evidence- and consensus-based guideline, provides a section on FT with recommendations for diagnostic work-up, indications, modalities, and follow-up. This section consists of 12 statements and recommendations for FT in the treatment of localized PCa. KEY MESSAGE: The German S3 guidelines on PCa are the first to incorporate recommendations for FT based on evidence and expert consensus including indication criteria for FT, pretreatment, and follow-up diagnostic pathways as well as an extended overview of FT techniques and the current supportive evidence.

Wnt/ß-Catenin Signalling and Its Cofactor BCL9L Have an Oncogenic Effect in Bladder Cancer Cells.

Bladder cancer (BC) is characterised by a high recurrence and progression rate. However, the molecular mechanisms of BC progression remain poorly understood. BCL9L, a coactivator of ß-catenin was mutated in the 5' and 3' untranslated regions (UTRs). We assessed the influence of UTRs mutations on BCL9L, and the role of BCL9L and Wnt/ß-catenin signalling in BC cells. UTR mutations were analysed by a luciferase reporter. BCL9L protein was assessed by immunohistochemistry in BC tissues. Cell proliferation was examined by crystal violet staining and by the spheroid model. Moreover, migration and invasion were analysed in real-time using the xCelligence RTCA system. The A > T mutation at 3' UTR of BCL9L reduces the luciferase reporter mRNA expression and activity. BCL9L is predominantly increased in dysplastic urothelial cells and muscle-invasive BC. Knockdown of BCL9L and inhibition of Wnt/ß-catenin signalling significantly repress the proliferation, migration and invasion of Cal29 and T24. In addition, BCL9L knockdown reduces mRNA level of Wnt/ß-catenin target genes in Cal29 but not in T24 cells. BCL9L and Wnt/ß-catenin signalling play an oncogenic role in bladder cancer cells and seems to be associated with BC progression. Nevertheless, the involvement of BCL9L in Wnt/ß-catenin signalling is cell-line specific.

Reduced IQGAP2 Promotes Bladder Cancer through Regulation of MAPK/ERK Pathway and Cytokines.

The progression of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) to muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is a major challenge in urologic oncology. However, understanding of the molecular processes remains limited. The dysregulation of IQGAP2 is becoming increasingly evident in most tumor entities, and it plays a role in multiple oncogenic pathways, so we evaluated the role of IQGAP2 in bladder cancer. IQGAP2 was downregulated in tumors compared with normal urothelium tissues and cells. IQGAP2 effectively attenuated bladder cancer cell growth independently from apoptosis. Reduced IQGAP2 promoted EMT in bladder cancer cells via activation of the MAPK/ERK pathway. In addition, IQGAP2 might influence key cellular processes, such as proliferation and metastasis, through the regulation of cytokines. In conclusion, we suggest that IQGAP2 plays a tumor-suppressing role in bladder cancer, possibly via inhibiting the MAPK/ERK pathway and reducing cytokines.

Everolimus after failure of one prior VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final results of the MARC-2 trial.

MARC-2, a prospective, multicenter phase IV trial, aimed to investigate clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with everolimus after failure of one initial vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) therapy and to identify subgroups benefiting most, based on clinical characteristics and biomarkers. Patients with clear cell mRCC failing one initial VEGFR-TKI received everolimus until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival rate (6moPFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), PFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. Between 2011 and 2015, 63 patients were enrolled. Median age was 65.4 years (range 43.3-81.1). 6moPFS was 39.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 27.0-51.3) overall, 54.4% (95% CI, 35.2-70.1) vs 23.7% (95% CI, 10.5-39.9) for patients aged ≥65 vs <65 years and 51.4% (95% CI, 34.7-65.7) vs 18.2% (95% CI, 5.7-36.3) for patients with body mass index (BMI) >25 vs ≤25 kg/m2 . A Cox proportional hazards model confirmed a longer PFS for patients aged ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.80) and a longer OS for patients with BMI >25 kg/m2 (HR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.71). Median PFS and median OS were 3.8 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.2) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.3-24.3). ORR was 7.9% and disease control rate was 60.3%. No new safety signals emerged. Most common adverse events were stomatitis (31.7%), fatigue (31.7%), and anemia (30.2%). One patient died from treatment-related upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Everolimus remains a safe and effective treatment option for mRCC patients after one prior VEGFR-TKI therapy. Patients aged ≥65 years and patients with BMI >25 kg/m2 benefited most.

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 .).

Prostatic Artery Embolization-Anatomic Predictors of Technical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To determine if cone-beam CT and digital subtraction angiography analysis of pelvic arterial anatomy has predictive value for radiation exposure and technical success of prostatic artery embolization (PAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, nonrandomized, single-center study included 104 consecutive patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cone-beam CT was performed in 160/208 (76.9%) hemipelves to determine prostatic artery (PA) origin. Classification of pelvic arterial tortuosity was possible in 73/104 (70.2%) patients. Learning curves of 2 interventionalists who performed 86.5% of PAEs were analyzed. RESULTS: Tortuosity of pelvic arteries was classified as mild in 25 (34.2%) patients median age 64 years, moderate in 40 (54.8%) patients median age 69 years, and severe in 8 (11.0%) patients median age 70 years (mild vs moderate, P = .002; mild vs severe, P = .019); median fluoroscopy times were 24, 36, and 46 minutes (P = .008, P = .023); median contrast volumes were 105, 122.5, and 142 mL (P = .029, P = .064); and bilateral PAE rates were 84.0%, 77.5%, and 62.5% (P = .437), respectively. PA origin from superior vesical artery was most frequent (27.5%) and showed higher dose area product (median 402.4 vs 218 Gy ∙ cm2, P = .033) and fluoroscopy time (median 42.5 vs 27 min, P = .01) compared with PA origin from obturator artery, which was least frequent. Interventionalist experience revealed significant impact on procedure times (median 159 vs 130 min, P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Tortuosity of pelvic arteries was more frequent in older patients and predicted worse technical outcomes of PAE. PA origin from obturator artery was associated with lower dose area product and fluoroscopy time, especially compared with PA origin from superior vesical artery. Interventionalist experience showed significant influence on technical outcome.

Consensus paper: current state of first- and second-line therapy in advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

The therapy of advanced (clear-cell) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has recently experienced tremendous changes. Several new treatments have been developed, with PD-1 immune-checkpoint inhibition being the backbone of therapy. Diverse immunotherapy combinations change current first-line standards. These changes also require new approaches in subsequent lines of therapy. In an expert panel, we discussed the new treatment options and how they change clinical practice. While first-line immunotherapies introduce a new level of response rates, data on second-line therapies remains poor. This scenario poses a challenge for clinicians as guideline recommendations are based on historical patient cohorts and agents may lack the appropriate label for their in guidelines recommended use. Here, we summarize relevant clinical data and consider appropriate treatment strategies.

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.

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.

Utility of the EORTC risk tables and CUETO scoring model for predicting recurrence and progression in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients treated with routine second transurethral resection.

PURPOSE: Routine second transurethral resection (TUR) for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is common practice in Germany. Applicability of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and Spanish Urological Club for Oncological Treatment (CUETO) models in NMIBC patients is still controversial. Aim of the study was to assess the performance of EORTC and CUETO predictive models in NMIBC patients treated with second TUR. METHODS: 479 NMIBC patients with routine second TUR were analyzed retrospectively between 2003 and 2011, and investigated with clinical and pathological variables in regard to tumor recurrence and progression. Furthermore, recurrencefree survival (RFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated according to EORTC and CUETO, and the discrimination of the models assessed. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 60 months, prior recurrence rate, grade, and second TUR pathology were independent prognostic factors for the risk of disease recurrence and progression. The concordance index of the EORTC and the CUETO model was 0.563 and 0.516 for recurrence and 0.681 and 0.702 for progression, respectively. The positive pathology after second TUR was significantly associated with risk of disease recurrence and progression. EORTC and CUETO risk models estimated progression better than recurrence, especially with higherscore groups. CONCLUSIONS: Improved predictive tools should be developed for optimal treatment selection.

Prostatic Artery Embolization with 250-µm Spherical Polyzene-Coated Hydrogel Microspheres for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms with Follow-up MR Imaging.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcomes and possible MR imaging predictors of clinical success after prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with 250-µm hydrogel particles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a span of 1.5 years, 30 patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms were included in a prospective, nonrandomized study. Embolization of at least one prostatic artery was considered as technical success. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), peak urinary flow rate (Qmax), residual urine volume, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen level, and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months after PAE. Multiparametric MR imaging was performed before PAE (n = 25) and 1 day (n = 25), 1 month (n = 7), 3 months (n = 7), and 6 months (n = 22) after intervention. A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to assess changes over time, and Spearman rank-correlation coefficient was used for outcome prediction. RESULTS: PAE was technically successful in 90% of patients (n = 27). Clinical success (IPSS < 18 with decrease > 25% and QOL score < 4 with decrease ≥ 1 or Qmax ≥ 15 mL/s and increase of ≥ 3.0 mL/s) rates were 59% (16 of 27), 63% (17 of 27), and 74% (20 of 27) after 1, 3, and 6 mo, respectively. IIEF scores did not differ significantly during follow-up. The following adverse events occurred after PAE: urethral burning (5 of 27), fever (2 of 27), and urethral bleeding, rectal bleeding, cystitis, and penile burning sensation (1 of 27 each). No statistical correlations between initial multiparametric MR imaging changes and clinical parameters after 6 months were found (P values from .14 to .98). CONCLUSIONS: PAE with 250-µm hydrogel microspheres led to good clinical success after 6 months with a low complication rate. Significant MR imaging predictors of clinical success were not identified.

Collection of real-world data on nivolumab's effectiveness in renal cell carcinoma: rationale for an observational study.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents the seventh (men) respectively tenth (women) most frequent cancer in western countries. After one or more lines of VEGF-targeted therapy, immunotherapy with nivolumab is strongly recommended in patients with metastatic RCC. Nivolumab is the first, and so far, only approved PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor to demonstrate a gain in overall survival in RCC. We describe herein design and rationale of trial CA209653 ('NIS NORA'), a prospective, noninterventional cohort study investigating the effectiveness of nivolumab. This systematic collection of real-world effectiveness data will recruit 323 patients with advanced RCC to provide a precise estimate for overall survival over a 5-year follow-up period (Trial registration: NCT02940639).

Influence of Body Mass Index on Clinical Outcome Parameters, Complication Rate and Survival after Radical Cystectomy: Evidence from a Prospective European Multicentre Study.

Background/Aims/Objectives: To evaluate the influence of body mass index (BMI) on complications and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC). METHODS: Clinical and histopathological parameters of patients have been prospectively collected within the "PROspective MulticEnTer RadIcal Cystectomy Series 2011". BMI was categorized as normal weight (<25 kg/m2), overweight (≥25-29.9 kg/m2) and obesity (≥30 kg/m2). The association between BMI and clinical and histopathological endpoints was examined. Ordinal logistic regression models were applied to assess the influence of BMI on complication rate and survival. RESULTS: Data of 671 patients were eligible for final analysis. Of these patients, 26% (n = 175) showed obesity. No significant association of obesity on tumour stage, grade, lymph node metastasis, blood loss, type of urinary diversion and 90-day mortality rate was found. According to the -American Society of Anesthesiologists score, local lymph node (NT) stage and operative case load patients with higher BMI had significantly higher probabilities of severe complications 30 days after RC (p = 0.037). The overall survival rate of obese patients was superior to normal weight patients (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of correlation between obesity and worse oncological outcomes after RC. While obesity should not be a parameter to exclude patients from cystectomy, surgical settings need to be aware of higher short-term complication risks and obese patients should be counselled -accordingly.

Nivolumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy (CheckMate 275): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma have a dismal prognosis and few treatment options after first-line chemotherapy. Responses to second-line treatment are uncommon. We assessed nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, for safety and activity in patients with metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed or recurred despite previous treatment with at least one platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. METHODS: In this multicentre, phase 2, single-arm study, patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic or surgically unresectable locally advanced urothelial carcinoma, measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance statuses of 0 or 1, and available tumour samples for biomarker analysis received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression and clinical deterioration, unacceptable toxicity, or other protocol-defined reasons. The primary endpoint was overall objective response confirmed by blinded independent review committee in all treated patients and by tumour PD-L1 expression (≥5% and ≥1%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02387996, and is completed. Follow-up is still ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 9, 2015, and Oct 16, 2015, 270 patients from 63 sites in 11 countries received nivolumab, and 265 were evaluated for activity. Median follow-up for overall survival was 7·00 months (IQR 2·96-8·77). Confirmed objective response was achieved in 52 (19·6%, 95% CI 15·0-24·9) of 265 patients. Confirmed objective response was achieved in 23 (28·4%, 95% CI 18·9-39·5) of the 81 patients with PD-L1 expression of 5% or greater, 29 (23·8%, 95% CI 16·5-32·3) of the 122 patients with PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater, and 23 (16·1%, 95% CI 10·5-23·1) of the 143 patients with PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48 (18%) of 270 patients-most commonly grade 3 fatigue and diarrhoea, which each occurred in five patients. Three deaths were attributed to treatment (pneumonitis, acute respiratory failure, and cardiovascular failure). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy provided meaningful clinical benefit, irrespective of PD-L1 expression, and was associated with an acceptable safety profile in previously treated patients with metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.