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

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

Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Avelumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).

Selection and evaluation of preoperative systemic inflammatory response biomarkers model prior to cytoreductive nephrectomy using a machine-learning approach.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of a panel of SIR-biomarkers, relative to standard clinicopathological variables, to improve mRCC patient selection for cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A panel of preoperative SIR-biomarkers, including the albumin-globulin ratio (AGR), De Ritis ratio (DRR), and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), was assessed in 613 patients treated with CN for mRCC. Patients were randomly divided into training and testing cohorts (65/35%). A machine learning-based variable selection approach (LASSO regression) was used for the fitting of the most informative, yet parsimonious multivariable models with respect to prognosis of cancer-specific survival (CSS). The discriminatory ability of the model was quantified using the C-index. After validation and calibration of the model, a nomogram was created, and decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to evaluate the clinical net benefit. RESULTS: SIR-biomarkers were selected by the machine-learning process to be of high discriminatory power during the fitting of the model. Low AGR remained significantly associated with CSS in both training (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.07-1.82, p = 0.01) and testing (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.26-2.51, p = 0.01) cohorts. High levels of SII (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.10-2.08, p = 0.01) and DRR (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96, p = 0.04) were associated with CSS only in the testing cohort. The exclusion of the SIR-biomarkers for the prognosis of CSS did not result in a significant decrease in C-index (- 0.9%) for the training cohort, while the exclusion of SIR-biomarkers led to a reduction in C-index in the testing cohort (- 5.8%). However, SIR-biomarkers only marginally increased the discriminatory ability of the respective model in comparison to the standard model. CONCLUSION: Despite the high discriminatory ability during the fitting of the model with machine-learning approach, the panel of readily available blood-based SIR-biomarkers failed to add a clinical benefit beyond the standard model.

Immunotherapy-based combinations in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To perform indirect comparisons of efficacy and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapies for renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC). RECENT FINDINGS: Five trials were included in our network meta-analyses comprising 568 patients. The combinations nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus cabozantinib achieved significant improvement of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rates (ORR). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with the highest likelihood of achieving a complete response. All the included combinations significantly improved PFS and ORR. The combinations of pembrolizumab plus axitinib did not show a statistically significant association with OS. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had the highest likelihood of improving PFS and OS. SUMMARY: Our network meta-analysis demonstrates that sRCC are responsive to immune-based combinations. The dual ICI with nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved all efficacy outcomes and achieved the highest complete response rates (CRR). Although the association of nivolumab plus cabozantinib with CRR was not statistically significant, this combination demonstrated the highest likelihood of PFS and OS improvements.

Analysis by region of outcomes for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with cabozantinib or everolimus: a sub-analysis of the METEOR study.

INTRODUCTION: METEOR was a phase 3 trial (NCT01865747) of cabozantinib versus everolimus in adults with advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC previously treated with VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This post hoc analysis of METEOR compared outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adults with advanced/metastatic clear cell RCC who had received ≥ 1 prior VEGFR-TKI treatment were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. Patients were categorized by recruitment region: Europe or outside of Europe (rest of world [RoW]). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were compared between regional subgroups. RESULTS: In total, there were 320 eligible patients from Europe (cabozantinib, 167; everolimus, 153) and 338 from RoW (North America, 240 patients; Asia-Pacific, 86; Latin America, 12; randomized as cabozantinib, 163; everolimus, 175). PFS and OS were longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus and similar for the Europe and RoW subgroups. For PFS, the hazard ratio (HR) for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 0.54 for the Europe subgroup (p < .001) and 0.50 for the RoW subgroup (p < .001). For OS, the HR was 0.75 for the Europe subgroup (p = .034) and 0.69 for the RoW subgroup (p = .006). ORR in the Europe subgroup was 15% for cabozantinib and 3.9% for everolimus (p < .001). For the RoW subgroup, ORR was 20% for cabozantinib and 2.9% for everolimus (p < .001). Incidence of grade 3/4 AEs were similar for the Europe (cabozantinib, 74%; everolimus, 58%) and RoW subgroups (cabozantinib, 69%; everolimus, 64%). CONCLUSION: In the METEOR trial, efficacy outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries favored cabozantinib over everolimus. The efficacy and safety results for the regional subgroups were consistent with those of the overall METEOR population.

CaboPoint: a phase II study of cabozantinib as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Cabozantinib is an inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinases, including AXL, MET and VEGF receptors. Here, we describe the rationale and design for the phase II CaboPoint trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03945773), which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib as a second-line treatment in patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease has progressed despite checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Patients will be recruited into two cohorts: prior ipilimumab plus nivolumab (cohort A) or prior checkpoint inhibitor-VEGF-targeted therapy (cohort B). All patients will receive once-daily oral cabozantinib 60 mg for up to 18 months. The primary end point is objective response rate. Secondary end points include overall survival, progression-free survival and safety.

Most patients diagnosed with kidney cancer have a type of tumor called renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Most cases of RCC are described as 'clear cell' because the tumor cells appear clear when viewed under a microscope. Cabozantinib is an oral treatment approved for use in some patients with advanced RCC, including those with clear cell disease. Cabozantinib slows RCC progression by targeting pathways that help tumors grow, including inhibition of VEGF. The ongoing CaboPoint study will assess the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with clear cell RCC that has progressed despite previous anticancer treatment involving an immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). CPI therapy helps the body to detect tumors and to launch its own anticancer response. Patients included in CaboPoint must be adults with clear cell RCC that is not suitable for surgery and has either spread within the kidney or to other organs, despite previous CPI-based therapy. In total, 250 patients will be recruited: 125 who received previous combination CPI treatment (ipilimumab plus nivolumab; group A) and 125 who received previous CPI treatment plus anti-VEGF therapy (group B). Patients will start cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg/day and continue treatment for up to 18 months. The main outcome to be studied will be the number of patients with a reduction in tumor size (objective response rate). The length of time patients live with their disease, the effect of treatment on symptoms and patient safety will also be evaluated. Clinical trial registration: NCT03945773 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the first-line setting: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Management of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) has undergone a paradigm shift with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the first-line setting. However, direct comparative data are inadequate to inform treatment decisions. Therefore, we aimed to assess first-line therapy for mRCC and indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for articles published before June 2020. Studies that compared overall and/or progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in mRCC patients were considered eligible. RESULTS: Six studies matched our eligibility criteria. For OS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.73-0.98] and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.75-0.99) were significantly more effective than sunitinib, and pembrolizumab plus axitinib was probably the best option based on analysis of the treatment ranking. For PFS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.76-0.97) and avelumab plus axitinib (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.74-0.98) were statistically superior to sunitinib, and avelumab plus axitinib was likely to be the preferred option based on analysis of the treatment ranking, closely followed by pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had significantly lower rates of serious AEs than sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib seemed to be the most efficacious first-line agents, while nivolumab plus ipilimumab had the most favorable efficacy-tolerability equilibrium. These findings may facilitate individualized treatment strategies and inform future direct comparative trials in an expanding treatment options without direct comparison between approved drugs.

The clinical relevance of laboratory prognostic scores for patients with radiosurgically treated brain metastases of non-pulmonary primary tumor.

PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical value of the inflammation based prognostic scores for patients with radiosurgically treated brain metastases (BM) originating from non-pulmonary primary tumor (PT). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 340 BM patients of different PT origin (melanoma, breast, gastrointestinal, or genitourinary cancer) was performed. Pre-radiosurgical laboratory prognostic scores, such as the Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR), the Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR), Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte Ratio (LMR), and the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), were investigated within 14 days before the first Gamma Knife radiosurgical treatment (GKRS1). RESULTS: In our study cohort, the estimated survival was significantly longer in patients with NLR < 5 (p < 0.001), LMR > 4 (p = 0.001) and in patients with a mGPS score of 0 (p < 0.001). Furthermore, univariate and multivariate Cox regression models revealed NLR ≥ 5, LMR < 4 and mGPS score ≥ 1 as independent prognostic factors for an increased risk of death even after adjusting for age, sex, KPS, extracranial metastases status, presence of neurological symptoms and treatment with immunotherapy (IT) or targeted therapy (TT). CONCLUSIONS: Summarizing previously published and present data, pre-radiosurgical mGPS and NLR groups seem to be the most effective and simple independent prognostic factors to predict clinical outcome in radiosurgically treated BM patients.

Adverse events of systemic immune-based combination therapies in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To compare the safety profiles of systemic immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapies that were evaluated in the first-line setting of the management of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). RECENT FINDINGS: Six phase III randomized control trials comparing first-line immune-based combination therapies to sunitinib in previously untreated patients with mRCC. Network meta-analyses were conducted to compare treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment discontinuation, and treatment-related mortality. SUMMARY: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with the highest likelihood of grade ≥3 TRAEs, and treatment discontinuation rates. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with the lowest rates of grade ≥3 TRAEs. However, it was associated with a higher likelihood of endocrine-related adverse events (AEs). A higher likelihood of high-grade diarrhea was associated with pembrolizumab plus axitinib and avelumab plus axitinib. All combinations showed low rates of hematological AEs.

What is next in second- and later-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma? review of the recent literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has changed dramatically from the dominance of single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy to immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations in recent years. However, the optimal subsequent therapy remains ill-defined owing to the novelty of this approach. RECENT FINDINGS: Treatment with TKIs after failure of single or dual ICI therapies may result in robust clinical efficacy. Nonetheless, there is a trend toward lower efficacy of TKIs after previous ICI-TKI combination therapy. Currently, tivozanib is the only drug whose third- and later-line use after failure of TKI and ICI is supported by evidence, with significantly longer progression-free survival and higher objective response rates than sorafenib. Data from retrospective studies highlight the safety and clinical activity of ICI rechallenge. SUMMARY: Overall, the level of evidence remains low. Treatment after failure of dual ICI therapy is not well defined and may consist of any available TKI. Although first-line use of TKI is less common, strong evidence suggests cabozantinib or nivolumab as standard options in that setting. The recommendations after first-line TKI-ICI therapy failure mirror this recommendation, although the data are less robust.

Dual immune check point blockade or immune check point-tyrosine kinase inhibitor combination: as a first-line treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss treatment decisions in the first-line setting of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). RECENT FINDINGS: Immune check point inhibitor (ICI) combinations have replaced sunitinib as the standard of care in the first-line treatment of mRCC. Dual ICI treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab was shown to significantly improve overall survival and objective response rates. Similarly, the ICI-tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations pembrolizumab and axitinib and nivolumab and cabozantinib have demonstrated superiority in terms of overall survival, objective response rates and progression-free survival versus sunitinib. The lack of both comparative trials and predictive markers impedes individualized treatment decisions. Clinicians are left to make treatment choices based on clinical and biological factors. These factors may include differences in toxicity profiles, the rate of complete remission, a clinical situation that requires urgent tumor shrinkage, the presence of inflammation, histological or immune-histochemical features and others. SUMMARY: In the absence of comparative trials, clinical and biological factors may facilitate the choice between various treatment options in the first-line setting of mRCC. In addition, both the experience of the physician with a specific treatment together with patient's preferences and expectations of systemic therapy may be part of the decision-making process.

PD1/PD-L1 therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of the article to summarize recent changes of treatment options in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with a special emphasis on immune checkpoint inhibition. RECENT FINDINGS: The introduction of checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy has led to a paradigm change in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Dual immune checkpoint inhibition or the combination of CPI and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) was shown to improve survival when compared with the former standard of care sunitinib. Moreover, these novel strategies were shown to enable unprecedented rates of complete and durable responses, particularly with dual checkpoint inhibition. Although the treatment landscape has rapidly evolved, it remains unknown which combination is the best for the individual patient. Pivotal trials have used sunitinib as a comparator but no head to head comparisons have been conducted between novel agents so far. Moreover, no predictive biomarker has been identified yet to bring the best treatment to the individual patient. SUMMARY: The aim of this review is to summarize the findings of CPI-based trials conducted in RCC and to discuss the future of mRCC treatment.

Prospective Observational Study of Pazopanib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (PRINCIPAL Study).

BACKGROUND: Real-world data are essential to accurately assessing efficacy and toxicity of approved agents in everyday practice. PRINCIPAL, a prospective, observational study, was designed to confirm the real-world safety and efficacy of pazopanib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: Patients with clear cell advanced/metastatic RCC and a clinical decision to initiate pazopanib treatment within 30 days of enrollment were eligible. Primary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), relative dose intensity (RDI) and its effect on treatment outcomes, change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety. We also compared characteristics and outcomes of clinical-trial-eligible (CTE) patients, defined using COMPARZ trial eligibility criteria, with those of non-clinical-trial-eligible (NCTE) patients. Secondary study objectives were to evaluate clinical efficacy, safety, and RDI in patient subgroups. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-seven patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of pazopanib. Median PFS and OS were 10.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2-12.0) and 29.9 months (95% CI, 24.7 to not reached), respectively, and the ORR was 30.3%. HRQoL showed no or little deterioration over time. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) and AEs of special interest occurred in 64 (9.7%), and 399 (60.7%) patients, respectively. More patients were classified NCTE than CTE (85.2% vs. 14.8%). Efficacy of pazopanib was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: PRINCIPAL confirms the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with advanced/metastatic RCC in a real-world clinical setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: PRINCIPAL is the largest (n = 657) prospective, observational study of pazopanib in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma, to the authors' knowledge. Consistent with clinical trial results that often contain specific patient types, the PRINCIPAL study demonstrated that the effectiveness and safety of pazopanib is similarly safe and effective in patients with advanced kidney cancer in a real-world clinical setting. The PRINCIPAL study showed that patients with advanced kidney cancer who are treated with first-line pazopanib generally do not show disease progression for approximately 10 months and generally survive for nearly 30 months.