An interdisciplinary consensus on the management of brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Brain metastases are a challenging manifestation of renal cell carcinoma. We have a limited understanding of brain metastasis tumor and immune biology, drivers of resistance to systemic treatment, and their overall poor prognosis. Current data support a multimodal treatment strategy with radiation treatment and/or surgery. Nonetheless, the optimal approach for the management of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma remains unclear. To improve patient care, the authors sought to standardize practical management strategies. They performed an unstructured literature review and elaborated on the current management strategies through an international group of experts from different disciplines assembled via the network of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition. Experts from different disciplines were administered a survey to answer questions related to current challenges and unmet patient needs. On the basis of the integrated approach of literature review and survey study results, the authors built algorithms for the management of single and multiple brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The literature review, consensus statements, and algorithms presented in this report can serve as a framework guiding treatment decisions for patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:454-489.

One Size Fits Some: Approaching Rare Malignancies of the Urinary Tract.

OPINION STATEMENT: Urothelial carcinoma is the predominant cancer of the urinary tract but when divergent and subtype histology (non-urothelial) are identified at time of pathologic diagnosis, therapeutic and diagnostic challenges transpire. To this end, pathologic review to confirm any non-urothelial histology is key since these subtypes can often be overlooked. Few prospective trials are dedicated to understanding these non-urothelial histologic types; however, current, and past trials did allow patients with these non-urothelial histologic types to enroll, and inferences can be made about treatment efficacy and survival. Existing treatment regimens for non-urothelial bladder cancers are akin to standard urothelial cancer regimens using surgical approaches for localized disease and platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced disease. The reported clinical trials, that will be discussed, center on non-urothelial histologic types. These studies, albeit limited, provide critical insight into tumor biology and response to standard platinum-based chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and antibody drug conjugates. The inclusion of non-urothelial histologic types will be essential for clinical trials in development to provide further therapeutic advances and provide essential efficacy data.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

Phase II trial of CV301 vaccine combined with atezolizumab in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

CV301 comprises recombinant poxviruses, Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) and Fowlpox (FPV), encoding CEA, MUC-1, and co-stimulatory Molecules (TRICOM) ICAM-1, LFA-3, and B7-1. MVA-BN-CV301 is used for priming and FPV-CV301 is used for boosting. A Phase 2, single-arm trial was designed to evaluate CV301 plus atezolizumab as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) (Cohort 1) or progressing after platinum chemotherapy (Cohort 2). MVA-CV301 was given subcutaneously (SC) on Days 1 and 22 and FPV-CV301 SC from day 43 every 21 days for 4 doses, then tapered gradually over up to 2 years. Atezolizumab 1200 mg IV was given every 21 days. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Overall, 43 evaluable patients received therapy: 19 in Cohort 1; 24 in Cohort 2; nine experienced ≥ Grade 3 therapy-related adverse events. In Cohort 1, one had partial response (PR) (ORR 5.3%, 90% CI 0.3, 22.6). In Cohort 2, 1 complete response and 1 PR were noted (ORR 8.3%, 90% CI 1.5, 24.0). The trial was halted for futility. Patients exhibiting benefit demonstrated T-cell response to CEA and MUC-1. The trial illustrates the challenges in the development of vaccines, which should be guided by robust preclinical data.

Cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from an expansion cohort of a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial (COSMIC-021).

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have few treatment options after novel hormonal therapy (eg, abiraterone or enzalutamide). We aimed to evaluate cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with immunomodulatory properties, in combination with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: COSMIC-021 is an ongoing, multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study with a dose-escalation stage followed by tumour-specific expansion stages. Expansion cohort 6 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was enrolled at 42 cancer research centres in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with radiographic soft tissue progression following treatment with either enzalutamide or abiraterone, or both; measurable soft tissue disease per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1; and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day and intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg once every 3 weeks. Study treatment continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. All enrolled patients were assessed for efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint was objective response rate per RECIST version 1.1 as assessed by the investigator. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03170960. FINDINGS: Between April 24, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 132 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. At data cutoff (Feb 19, 2021), median duration of follow-up was 15·2 months (IQR 9·6-21·7). Objective response rate was 23% (95% CI 17-32; 31 of 132 patients), with three (2%) confirmed complete responses and 28 (21%) confirmed partial responses. 72 (55%) of 132 patients had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, with the most common being pulmonary embolism (11 [8%] patients), diarrhoea (nine [7%]), fatigue (nine [7%]), and hypertension (nine [7%]). There was one grade 5 treatment-related adverse event (dehydration). 74 (56%) of 132 patients had serious adverse events of any causality. 28 (21%) of 132 patients had treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of either study drug. INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab showed promising antitumour activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after novel hormonal therapy with an acceptable safety profile, supporting further evaluation of this combination. FUNDING: Exelixis.

Longitudinal Evaluation of Circulating Tumor DNA Using Sensitive Amplicon-Based Next-Generation Sequencing to Identify Resistance Mechanisms to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

Serial evaluation of circulating tumor DNA may allow noninvasive assessment of drivers of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced urothelial cancer (aUC). We used a novel, amplicon-based next-generation sequencing assay to identify genomic alterations (GAs) pre- and post-therapy in 39 patients with aUC receiving ICI and 6 receiving platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). One or more GA was seen in 95% and 100% of pre- and post-ICI samples, respectively, commonly in TP53 (54% and 54%), TERT (49% and 59%), and BRCA1/BRCA2 (33% and 33%). Clearance of ≥1 GA was seen in 7 of 9 patients responding to ICI, commonly in TP53 (n = 4), PIK3CA (n = 2), and BRCA1/BRCA2 (n = 2). A new GA was seen in 17 of 20 patients progressing on ICI, frequently in BRCA1/BRCA2 (n = 6), PIK3CA (n = 3), and TP53 (n = 3), which seldom emerged in patients receiving PBC. These findings highlight the potential for longitudinal circulating tumor DNA evaluation in tracking response and resistance to therapy.

Associations between immune-related thyroid dysfunction and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence suggesting that the occurrence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) may be a predictor of immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy. Whether this association extends to all irAEs or just those within particular organs/systems is yet to be resolved. As immune-related thyroid dysfunction (thyroid irAE) is one of the most commonly reported irAEs, this study aims to summarize the available data and determine if thyroid irAE is a surrogate marker for improved cancer outcomes during ICI therapy. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to July 1st 2021 for studies assessing the relationship between thyroid irAE development during ICI therapy and cancer outcomes. Outcome measures of interest include overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Sub-group analyses based on cancer type and adjustment for immortal time bias (ITB) were also performed. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies were included in the systematic review. Twenty-one studies were included in the OS meta-analysis whilst 15 were included in the PFS meta-analysis. Development of thyroid irAE during ICI therapy was associated with improved OS and PFS (OS: HR 0.52, CI 0.43-0.62, p < 0.001; PFS: HR 0.58, CI 0.50-0.67, p < 0.001). Sub-group analyses involving non-small cell lung cancer populations and studies where ITB was accounted for, observed similar results (HR 0.37, CI 0.24-0.57, p < 0.001) and (HR 0.51, CI 0.39-0.69, p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite the heterogeneity and biases identified, the evidence does suggest that the development of thyroid irAE is associated with anti-tumor effects of ICIs and therefore, can be used as a surrogate marker for clinical response.

A phase III, randomized, open-label study (CONTACT-02) of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus second novel hormone therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Cabozantinib inhibits multiple receptor tyrosine kinases, including the TAM kinase family, and may enhance response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. One cohort of the ongoing phase Ib COSMIC-021 study (NCT03170960) evaluating cabozantinib plus the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that has progressed in soft tissue on/after enzalutamide and/or abiraterone treatment for metastatic disease has shown promising efficacy. Here, we describe the rationale and design of a phase III trial of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus a second novel hormone therapy (NHT) in patients who have previously received an NHT for mCRPC, metastatic castration-sensitive PC or nonmetastatic CRPC and have measurable visceral disease and/or extrapelvic adenopathy - a population with a significant unmet need for treatment options. Trial Registration Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04446117 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Registered on 24 June 2020.

Enfortumab vedotin after PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (EV­201): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma is generally incurable and has scarce treatment options, especially for cisplatin-ineligible patients previously treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy. Enfortumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate directed at Nectin-4, a protein highly expressed in urothelial carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin in the post-immunotherapy setting in cisplatin-ineligible patients. METHODS: EV-201 is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study of enfortumab vedotin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma previously treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. Cohort 2 included adults (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less who were considered ineligible for cisplatin at enrolment and who had not received platinum-containing chemotherapy in the locally advanced or metastatic setting. Enfortumab vedotin was given intravenously at a dose of 1·25 mg/kg on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 assessed by blinded independent central review. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of enfortumab vedotin. EV-201 is an ongoing study and the primary analysis is complete. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03219333. FINDINGS: Between Oct 8, 2017, and Feb 11, 2020, 91 patients were enrolled at 40 sites globally, of whom 89 received treatment. Median follow-up was 13·4 months (IQR 11·3-18·9). At data cutoff (Sept 8, 2020), the confirmed objective response rate was 52% (46 of 89 patients; 95% CI 41-62), with 18 (20%) of 89 patients achieving a complete response and 28 (31%) achieving a partial response. 49 (55%) of 89 patients had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (eight [9%] patients), maculopapular rash (seven [8%] patients), and fatigue (six [7%] patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 15 (17%) patients. Three (3%) patients died due to acute kidney injury, metabolic acidosis, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (one [1%] each) within 30 days of first dose and these deaths were considered by the investigator to be related to treatment; a fourth death from pneumonitis occurred more than 30 days after the last dose and was also considered to be related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with enfortumab vedotin was tolerable and confirmed responses were seen in 52% of cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who were previously treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. These patients have few treatment options, and enfortumab vedotin could be a promising new therapy for a patient population with a high unmet need. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma Global Development and Seagen.

Results of a multicenter, phase 2 study of nivolumab and ipilimumab for patients with advanced rare genitourinary malignancies.

BACKGROUND: In this multicenter, single-arm, multicohort, phase 2 trial, the efficacy of nivolumab and ipilimumab was evaluated in patients with advanced rare genitourinary cancers, including bladder and upper tract carcinoma of variant histology (BUTCVH), adrenal tumors, platinum-refractory germ cell tumors, penile carcinoma, and prostate cancer of variant histology (NCT03333616). METHODS: Patients with rare genitourinary malignancies and no prior immune checkpoint inhibitor exposure were enrolled. Patients received nivolumab at 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks for 4 doses, and this was followed by 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled at 6 institutions between April 2018 and July 2019 in 3 cohorts: BUTCVH (n = 19), adrenal tumors (n = 18), and other tumors (n = 18). The median follow-up was 9.9 months (range, 1 to 21 months). Twenty-eight patients (51%) received 4 doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab; 25 patients received nivolumab maintenance for a median of 4 cycles (range, 1-18 cycles). The ORR for the entire study was 16% (80% confidence interval, 10%-25%); the ORR in the BUTCVH cohort, including 2 complete responses, was 37%, and it was 6% in the other 2 cohorts. Twenty-two patients (40%) developed treatment-related grade 3 or higher toxicities; 24% (n = 13) required high-dose steroids (≥40 mg of prednisone or the equivalent). Grade 5 events occurred in 3 patients; 1 death was treatment related. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in objective responses in a subset of patients with rare genitourinary malignancies, especially those with BUTCVH. An additional cohort exploring their activity in genitourinary tumors with neuroendocrine differentiation is ongoing. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with rare cancers are often excluded from studies and have limited treatment options. Fifty-five patients with rare tumors of the genitourinary system were enrolled from multiple sites and were treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab, a regimen used for kidney cancer. The regimen showed activity in some patients, particularly those with bladder or upper tract cancers of unusual or variant histology; 37% of those patients responded to therapy. Additional studies are ongoing to better determine who benefits the most from this combination.

Optimal pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: results from a global, multicentre collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of patients achieving a post-treatment pathological stage of

A model combining clinical and genomic factors to predict response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), predictive biomarkers that correlate with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are lacking. Here, we interrogated genomic and clinical features associated with response to ICIs in mUC. METHODS: Sixty two mUC patients treated with ICI who had targeted tumour sequencing were studied. We examined associations between candidate biomarkers and clinical benefit (CB, any objective reduction in tumour size) versus no clinical benefit (NCB, no change or objective increase in tumour size). Both univariable and multivariable analyses for associations were conducted. A comparator cohort of 39 mUC patients treated with taxanes was analysed by using the same methodology. RESULTS: Nine clinical and seven genomic factors correlated with clinical outcomes in univariable analysis in the ICI cohort. Among the 16 factors, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥5 (OR = 0.12, 95% CI, 0.01-1.15), visceral metastasis (OR = 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01-0.43) and single-nucleotide variant (SNV) count < 10 (OR = 0.04, 95% CI, 0.006-0.27) were identified as independent predictors of NCB to ICI in multivariable analysis (c-statistic = 0.90). None of the 16 variables were associated with clinical benefit in the taxane cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This three-factor model includes genomic (SNV count >9) and clinical (NLR <5, lack of visceral metastasis) variables predictive for benefit to ICI but not taxane therapy for mUC. External validation of these hypothesis-generating results is warranted to enable use in routine clinical care.

Real-World Assessment of Clinical Outcomes Among First-Line Sunitinib Patients with Clear Cell Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium Risk Group.

BACKGROUND: International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups are important when considering therapeutic options for first-line treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with clear cell mRCC initiating first-line sunitinib between 2010 and 2018 were included in this retrospective database study. Median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Outcomes were stratified by IMDC risk groups and evaluated for those in the combined intermediate and poor risk group and separately for those in the intermediate risk group with one versus two risk factors. RESULTS: Among 1,769 patients treated with first-line sunitinib, 318 (18%) had favorable, 1,031 (58%) had intermediate, and 420 (24%) had poor IMDC risk. Across the three risk groups, patients had similar age, gender, and sunitinib initiation year. Median TTD was 15.0, 8.5, and 4.2 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 7.1 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS was 52.1, 31.5, and 9.8 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 23.2 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS (35.1 vs. 21.9 months) and TTD (10.3 vs. 6.6 months) were significantly different between intermediate risk patients with one versus two risk factors. CONCLUSION: This real-world study found a median OS of 52 months for patients with favorable IMDC risk treated with first-line sunitinib, setting a new benchmark on clinical outcomes of clear cell mRCC. Analysis of intermediate risk group by one or two risk factors demonstrated distinct clinical outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This analysis offers a contemporary benchmark for overall survival (median, 52.1 months; 95% confidence interval, 43.4-61.2) among patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy in a real-world setting and classified as favorable risk according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification. This study demonstrates that clinical outcomes differ between IMDC risk groups as well as within the intermediate risk group based on the number of risk factors, thus warranting further consideration of risk group when counseling patients about therapeutic options and designing clinical trials.

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.

Differences in survival and impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with variant histology of tumors of the renal pelvis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of variant histologies on overall survival (OS), as well as their influence on the response to neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is well studied in patients diagnosed with bladder cancer. However, little is known about tumors with variant histologies of the upper urinary tract. The objective of this study was to assess the survival of the predominant variant histologies of tumors of the renal pelvis (RPT) after surgical intervention, and to examine the influence of AC on the OS of the different variant histologies. METHODS: We identified 21,318 patients with RPT undergoing surgical intervention using the National Cancer Database for the period 2004-2015. We employed multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves to evaluate the OS according to variant histology. Separate multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the specific effect of AC on OS of the histological subgroups. RESULTS: The majority of patients were diagnosed with pure urothelial carcinoma (PUC) (96.1%). Overall, 826 patients were diagnosed with variant histologies (adenocarcinoma N = 298, squamous cell carcinoma N = 291, sarcomatoid N = 137, others N = 100). Compared to PUC, adenocarcinomas showed longer OS (HR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.94, p = 0.01), while sarcomatoid tumors had shorter OS (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.12-2.26, p = 0.011). A subgroup analysis of patients undergoing AC showed a survival benefit in patients with PUC (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We found that variant histologies of upper urinary tract carcinomas exhibit different survival rates and that AC was only associated with an OS benefit in patients with PUC.

Testicular Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Testicular cancer is relatively uncommon and accounts for <1% of all male tumors. However, it is the most common solid tumor in men between the ages of 20 and 34 years, and the global incidence has been steadily rising over the past several decades. Several risk factors for testicular cancer have been identified, including personal or family history of testicular cancer and cryptorchidism. Testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) comprise 95% of malignant tumors arising in the testes and are categorized into 2 main histologic subtypes: seminoma and nonseminoma. Although nonseminoma is the more clinically aggressive tumor subtype, 5-year survival rates exceed 70% with current treatment options, even in patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Radical inguinal orchiectomy is the primary treatment for most patients with testicular GCTs. Postorchiectomy management is dictated by stage, histology, and risk classification; treatment options for nonseminoma include surveillance, systemic therapy, and nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Although rarely occurring, prognosis for patients with brain metastases remains poor, with >50% of patients dying within 1 year of diagnosis. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer focuses on recommendations for the management of adult patients with nonseminomatous GCTs.