Impact of smoking status on clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor-based regimens.

BACKGROUND: Current tobacco smoking is independently associated with decreased overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with targeted monotherapy (VEGF-TKI). Herein, we assess the influence of smoking status on the outcomes of patients with mRCC treated with the current first-line standard of care of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Real-world data from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were collected retrospectively. Patients with mRCC who received either dual ICI therapy or ICI with VEGF-TKI in the first-line setting were included and were categorized as current, former, or nonsmokers. The primary outcomes were OS, time to treatment failure (TTF), and objective response rate (ORR). OS and TTF were compared between groups using the log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression models. ORR was assessed between the 3 groups using a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 989 eligible patients were included in the analysis, with 438 (44.3%) nonsmokers, 415 (42%) former, and 136 (13.7%) current smokers. Former smokers were older and included more males, while other baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Median follow-up for OS was 21.2 months. In the univariate analysis, a significant difference between groups was observed for OS (P = .027) but not for TTF (P = .9), with current smokers having the worse 2-year OS rate (62.8% vs 70.8% and 73.1% in never and former smokers, respectively). After adjusting for potential confounders, no significant differences in OS or TTF were observed among the 3 groups. However, former smokers demonstrated a higher ORR compared to never smokers (OR 1.45, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Smoking status does not appear to independently influence the clinical outcomes to first-line ICI-based regimens in patients with mRCC. Nonetheless, patient counseling on tobacco cessation remains a crucial aspect of managing patients with mRCC, as it significantly reduces all-cause mortality.

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.

Characterization of Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Experiencing Complete Response to First-line Therapies: Results From the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials have demonstrated higher complete response rates in the immuno-oncology-based combination arms than in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor arms in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to characterize real-world patients who experienced complete response to the contemporary first-line therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium, response-evaluable patients who received frontline immuno-oncology-based combination therapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy were analyzed. Baseline characteristics of patients and post-landmark overall survival were compared based on best overall response, as per RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: A total of 52 (4.6%) of 1,126 and 223 (3.0%) of 7,557 patients experienced complete response to immuno-oncology-based and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies, respectively (P = .005). An adjusted odds ratio for complete response achieved by immuno-oncology-based combination therapy (vs tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy) was 1.56 (95% CI 1.11-2.17; P = .009). Among patients who experienced complete response, the immuno-oncology-based cohort had a higher proportion of non-clear cell histology (15.9% and 4.7%; P = .016), sarcomatoid dedifferentiation (29.8% and 13.5%; P = .014), and multiple sites of metastases (80.4% and 50.0%; P < .001) than the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohort. Complete response was independently associated with post-landmark overall survival benefit in both the immuno-oncology-based and tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohorts, giving respective adjusted hazard ratios of 0.17 (95% CI 0.04-0.72; P = .016) and 0.28 (95% CI 0.21-0.38; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The complete response rate was not as high in the real-world population as in the clinical trial population. Among those who experienced complete response, several adverse clinicopathological features were more frequently observed in the immuno-oncology-based cohort than in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohort. Complete response was an indicator of favorable overall survival.

A Comparison of Percutaneous Ablation Therapy to Partial Nephrectomy for cT1a Renal Cancers: Results from the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System.

PURPOSE: Percutaneous ablation therapy (AT) and partial nephrectomy (PN) are successful management strategies for T1a renal cancer. Our objective was to compare AT to PN with respect to recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients post-PN or -AT for cT1aN0M0 renal cancer from 2011 to 2021 were identified from the national Canadian Kidney Cancer information system. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using propensity score (PS) was used. The primary outcomes, RFS and OS, were compared using Kaplan-Meier log-rank test analyses and Cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients underwent AT and 2,001 underwent PN, with a median followup of 2.0 years (IQR 0.6-4.1). Covariates were well balanced between the AT and PN cohorts following PS matching. Two-year RFS following IPTW PS analysis for patients undergoing AT and PN was 88.1% and 97.4% (p <0.0001), respectively, while 2-year OS was 97.4% and 99.0% (p=0.7), respectively. Five-year RFS following IPTW PS analysis for patients undergoing AT and PN was 86.0% and 95.1%, respectively (p=0.003), while 5-year OS was 94.2% and 95.1%, respectively (p=0.9). Following IPTW PS analysis, treatment modality (PN vs AT) was a predictor of disease recurrence (HR 0.36, p=0.003) but not for OS (HR 0.96, p=0.9). CONCLUSIONS: With short followup, PN offers better RFS than AT, although no significant difference in OS was detected following PS adjustments. Both modalities can be offered to appropriately selected patients while we await prospective randomized data.

Undiagnosed cardiac deficits in non-small cell carcinoma patients in the candidate population for anti-cachexia clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Currently, there is no approved therapy for cancer cachexia. According to European and American regulatory agencies, physical function improvements would be approvable co-primary endpoints of new anti-cachexia medications. As physical functioning is in part dependent on cardiac functioning, we aimed to explore the cardiac status of a group of patients meeting current criteria for inclusion in cachexia clinical trials. METHODS: Seventy treatment-naive patients with metastatic NSCLC [36 (51.4%) male; 96% ECOG 0-1; eligible for carboplatin-based therapy and meeting eligibility criteria for cachexia clinical trials] were recruited before the start of first-line carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Patients were evaluated by echocardiography, electrocardiography, and scales for fatigue and dyspnea. Computed tomography cross-sectional images were utilized for body composition analysis. RESULTS: In 9/70 patients (12.8%), echocardiography allowed discovery of clinically relevant cardiac disorders [seven patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 32%-47%; one patient with severe right ventricular dilation and severe pulmonary hypertension and one patient with severe pericardial effusion warranted hospitalization and drainage]. Another 10/70 (14.3%) patients had diastolic dysfunction with preserved LVEF. The cardiac conditions were associated with aggravated fatigue (p < 0.05), dyspnea (p < 0.05), and anemia (p = 0.06). Five out of seven patients with LVEF < 50% were sarcopenic and one was borderline sarcopenic. CONCLUSION: Baseline cardiac status of the metastatic NSCLC patients adds potential heterogeneity for anti-cachexia clinical trials. Detailed cardiac screening data might be useful for inclusion/exclusion criteria, randomization, and post hoc analysis.

Checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, outcomes and prognostic tools have yet to be clearly defined in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are treated with immuno-oncology (IO) checkpoint inhibitors (programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] inhibitors). In the current study, the authors aimed to establish IO efficacy benchmarks in patients with mRCC and update patient outcomes in each International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic class. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using the IMDC database with data from 38 centers. It included patients with mRCC who were treated with ≥1 line of IO. Overall response rates (ORRs), duration of treatment (DOT), and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Patients were stratified using IMDC prognostic factors. RESULTS: A total of 687 patients (90% with clear cell and 10% with non-clear cell) were included. The ORR was 27% in evaluable patients (461 patients). In patients treated with first-line nivolumab and ipilimumab (49 patients), the combination of PD-L1 inhibitor and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (72 patients), and PD-L1 inhibitor (51 patients), the ORR was 31%, 39%, and 40%, respectively, and the median DOT was 8.3 months, 14.7 months, and 8.3 months, respectively. The ORR for second-line, third-line, and fourth-line nivolumab was 22%, 24%, and 26%, respectively. The median DOT was 5.7 months, 6.2 months, and 8.3 months, respectively, in the second-line, third-line, and fourth-line settings. When segregated into IMDC favorable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk groups, the median OS rates for the first-line, second-line, third-line, and fourth-line treatment settings were not reached (NR), NR, and NR, respectively (P = .163); NR, 26.7 months, and 7.4 months, respectively (P < 0. 0001); 36.1 months, 28.2 months, and 11.1 months, respectively (P = .016); and NR, NR, and 6.7 months, respectively (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: The ORR was not found to deteriorate from the first-line to the fourth-line of IO therapy. In the second line through fourth line, the IMDC criteria appropriately stratified patients into favorable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk groups for OS.

Outcomes of First Subsequent Taxane Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Who Previously Received Docetaxel Intensification for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of advanced prostate cancer continues to evolve rapidly, particularly with the earlier use of survival-prolonging therapies in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Though approved prior to the use of intensification therapy in mCSPC, taxane-based chemotherapies remain a relevant option for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, there is little evidence determining the outcomes of taxane chemotherapies as the first subsequent taxane (FST) in mCRPC pts who received docetaxel intensification (DI) in mCSPC. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes between the survival-prolonging taxanes, docetaxel and cabazitaxel as FST after DI. METHODS: New patient consults seen at the Cross Cancer Institute from 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Pts were considered eligible if they received DI for mCSPC and then received either docetaxel or cabazitaxel in mCRPC. Variables of interest were collected from electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was ≥50% PSA response at 12 weeks relative to baseline for FST. Secondary endpoints included OS from mCSPC diagnosis, as well as PFS and OS from the FST start date. PSA responses were compared using the chi-squared test, and time-based endpoints were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: In total, 34 pts were identified: docetaxel = 22 and cabazitaxel = 12 as FST. 91.2% of pts (docetaxel 95.5% vs. cabazitaxel 83.3%) received FST in 2nd line mCRPC. The median age at diagnosis (63.1 vs. 67.1 yrs, p = 0.236) and the median time to CRPC (18.6 vs. 14.2 mos, p = 0.079) were similar for docetaxel and cabazitaxel, respectively. The median time to FST (24.1 vs. 34.6 mos, p = 0.036) and OS from mCSPC diagnosis (30.9 vs. 52.7 mos, p = 0.002) were significantly shorter for pts receiving cabazitaxel vs. docetaxel. PSA responses occurred in 40.9% of pts treated with docetaxel compared to 25.0% treated with cabazitaxel (p = 0.645). There was no significant difference in median PFS (2.7 vs. 3.5 mos, p = 0.727) or median OS (11.4 vs. 8.1 mos, p = 0.132) from the time of FST for pts treated with docetaxel vs. cabazitaxel, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both docetaxel and cabazitaxel demonstrated activity as FST after DI in mCSPC. Pts who received cabazitaxel had a shorter time to FST and OS from mCSPC. The reasons for this may reflect clinician preference for cabazitaxel in pts with aggressive or rapidly progressing disease. No difference was found in PSA response, PFS, or OS from FST with docetaxel compared to cabazitaxel. While limited by its retrospective nature and small sample size, this study suggests that docetaxel is active as FST despite treatment with DI in mCSPC.

Elevated Troponin T in Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitor Myositis: A Case of Mistaken Myocarditis.

A patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma on axitinib and pembrolizumab had elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T and normal high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I with unremarkable cardiac investigations. A noncardiac cause (myositis) was the likely cause for cardiac troponin T elevation. Cardiac troponin I may be a more appropriate marker to support a myocarditis diagnosis with concurrent myositis.

Association of Cabozantinib Dose Reductions for Toxicity With Clinical Effectiveness in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC): Results From the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis).

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib, an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), has demonstrated efficacy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The association between toxicity and therapeutic effectiveness has been established with other TKIs. We investigated whether cabozantinib dose reductions, a surrogate for toxicity and adequate drug exposure, were associated with improved clinical outcomes in mRCC. METHODS: Employing the CKCis database, we analyzed patients treated with cabozantinib in the second line or later between 2011 to 2021. The cohort was stratified into those needing dose reductions (DR) during treatment and those not (no-DR). Outcomes, including objective response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall survival (OS), were compared based on dose reduction status. The influence of the initial dose on outcomes was also explored. RESULTS: Among 319 cabozantinib-treated patients, 48.3% underwent dose reductions. Response rates exhibited no significant difference between the DR and no-DR groups (15.1% vs. 18.2%, P = .55). Patients with DR had superior median OS (26.15 vs. 15.47 months, P = .019) and TTF (12.74 vs. 6.44 months, P = .022) compared to no-DR patients. These differences retained significance following adjustment for IMDC risk group (OS HR = 0.67, P = .032; TTF HR = 0.65, P = .008). There was no association between the initial dose and ORR, OS, or TTF. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the link between cabozantinib dose reductions due to toxicity and improved survival and time to treatment failure in mRCC patients. These findings underscore the potential of using on-treatment toxicity as an indicator of adequate drug exposure to individualize dosing and optimize treatment effectiveness. Larger studies are warranted to validate these results and develop individualized strategies for cabozantinib when given alone or in combination with immunotherapy.

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation for relapsed metastatic germ cell tumors The Alberta experience.

INTRODUCTION: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation (HDC-ASCT) is standard therapy for metastatic germ cell tumors (mGCTs) in patients whose disease progresses during or after conventional chemotherapy. We conducted a retrospective review of HDC-ASCT in relapsed mGCT patients in the province of Alberta, Canada, over the past two decades. METHODS: Patients with mGCTs who received HDC-ASCT at two provincial cancer referral centers from 2000-2018 were identified from institutional databases. Baseline clinical and treatment characteristics were collected, as well as overall survival (OS ) and disease-free survival (DFS). Relevant prognostic variables were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were identified. The median age was 28 years (range 19-56). A majority (95%) had non-seminoma histology and testis/retroperitoneal primary (84%). Twenty patients (47%) had poor-risk disease, as per The International Germ Cell Consensus Classification (IGCCC), at start of first-line chemotherapy. HDC-ASCT was used as second-line therapy in 65% of patients, and 58% of ASCT patients received tandem transplants. Median followup after ASCT was 22 months (range 2-181). At last followup, 42% of patients were alive without disease, including 3/7 (43%) of patients with primary mediastinal disease. Two-year and five-year DFS/OS ratios were 44%/65% and 38%/45%, respectively. Median OS and DFS for all patients were 30.0 months (13.3-46.6) and 8.0 months (0.9-15.1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found that HDC-ASCT is an effective salvage therapy in mGCT, consistent with existing literature. Patients appeared to benefit regardless of primary site. Although limited by small sample size, we found a numerical difference in DFS and OS between second- and third-line HDC-ASCT and single vs. tandem ASCT.

Practice patterns and predictors of treatment intensification in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment intensification beyond androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has shown survival benefit in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). There is a need to better understand how these novel treatments fit in real-world practice. METHODS: Using electronic medical records and administrative data, a population-based, retrospective cohort study of patients newly diagnosed with de novo mCSPC between 2010 and 2020 in Alberta, Canada, and initiated ADT was conducted. Treatment intensification was defined as the receipt of apalutamide, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, or chemotherapy (e.g., docetaxel) within 180 days of ADT initiation. RESULTS: A total of 2515 de novo mCSPC were identified, with 2098 (83%) patients initiating ADT post-diagnosis. Of those, 525 (25%) received intensification beyond ADT. The percentage of patients who were intensified was 3% in 2010-2013 and gradually increased to 67% in 2020. From 2014-2017, docetaxel was the most commonly used approach, although it was supplanted by abiraterone acetate, apalutamide and enzalutamide from 2018 onwards. In multivariable logistic regression analyses of patients diagnosed from 2014-2020, significant predictors of intensification were younger age at diagnosis, lower Charlson comorbidity index, greater number of metastatic sites, shorter time to ADT initiation, referral to a medical oncologist, transurethral resection of the prostate or radiation prior to ADT, and more recent year of diagnosis (all p<0.05). Intensification increased for patients living in rural areas and with higher disease burden in 2018+ compared to 2014-2017. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a considerable increase in the use of ADT intensification therapies that correspond with the timing of clinical trial data and approvals of novel agents.

Real-world Assessment of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma with or Without Sarcomatoid Features Treated with First-line Systemic Therapies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients have been reported to have better outcomes when treated with immunotherapies (IO) compared to targeted therapies (TT). This study aims to evaluate the impact of first-line systemic therapies on survival of mRCC patients with or without sarcomatoid features using real-world data. METHODS: Metastatic RCC patients of International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate or high risk, diagnosed from January 2011 to December 2022, treated with first-line systemic therapies, and with histological documentation of the presence or absence of sarcomatoid features in nephrectomy specimens were identified using the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system. Patients were classified by initial treatment: (1) targeted therapy (TT) used alone or (2) immunotherapy (IO)-based systemic therapies used in combination of either IO-IO or IO-TT. The inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores was used to balance for covariates. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the impact of initial treatment received on overall survival (OS). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 1202 eligible patients, 791 were treated with TT and 411 with IO combinations. Of the patients, 76% were male, and the majority (91%) had a nephrectomy before systemic therapy. In nonsarcomatoid patients (639 TT and 320 IO patients), treatment with IO was associated with improved OS compared with patients treated with TT (median of 72 vs 48 mo, hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.80, objective response rate [ORR] of 38.5% for IO and 23.5% for TT). In sarcomatoid patients (152 TT and 91 IO patients), treatment with IO was associated with improved OS (median of 48 vs 18 mo, HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26-0.64, ORR of 49.5% for IO and 13.8% for TT). Similar results were observed in patients with synchronous metastatic disease only. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: IO treatment was associated with improved survival in mRCC patients. The magnitude of benefit is increased in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC, consequently, identifying the sarcomatoid status early on could help healthcare providers make a better treatment decision. PATIENT SUMMARY: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients of International mRCC Database Consortium intermediate and high risk, diagnosed from January 2011 to December 2022, treated with first-line systemic therapies, and with histological documentation of the presence or absence of sarcomatoid features in nephrectomy specimens were identified using the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis). In this study, treatment with immunotherapy was associated to an improved survival and response rates for mRCC patients with and without sarcomatoid features. The magnitude of benefit is increased in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC.

Pembrolizumab With or Without Lenvatinib for First-Line Metastatic NSCLC With Programmed Cell Death-Ligand 1 Tumor Proportion Score of at least 1% (LEAP-007): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was found to have antitumor activity and acceptable safety in previously treated metastatic NSCLC. We evaluated first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab in metastatic NSCLC in the LEAP-007 study (NCT03829332/NCT04676412). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated stage IV NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without targetable EGFR/ROS1/ALK aberrations were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo once daily; all patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and overall survival (OS). We report results from a prespecified nonbinding futility analysis of OS performed at the fourth independent data and safety monitoring committee review (futility bound: one-sided p < 0.4960). RESULTS: A total of 623 patients were randomized. At median follow-up of 15.9 months, median (95% confidence interval [CI]) OS was 14.1 (11.4‒19.0) months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group versus 16.4 (12.6‒20.6) months in the placebo plus pembrolizumab group (hazard ratio = 1.10 [95% CI: 0.87‒1.39], p = 0.79744 [futility criterion met]). Median (95% CI) PFS was 6.6 (6.1‒8.2) months versus 4.2 (4.1‒6.2) months, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.64‒0.95]). Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57.9% of patients (179 of 309) versus 24.4% (76 of 312). Per data and safety monitoring committee recommendation, the study was unblinded and lenvatinib and placebo were discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not have a favorable benefit‒risk profile versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab monotherapy remains an approved treatment option in many regions for first-line metastatic NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without EGFR/ALK alterations.

Characterization of Responses to Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma at the Final Prespecified Survival Analysis of the Phase 3 CLEAR Study.

In the phase 3 CLEAR trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (L + P) showed superior efficacy versus sunitinib in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The combination treatment was associated with a robust objective response rate of 71%. Here we report tumor responses for patients in the L + P arm in CLEAR, with median follow-up of ∼4 yr at the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis. Tumor responses were assessed by independent review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Patients with a complete response (CR; n = 65), partial response (PR) with maximum tumor shrinkage ≥75% (near-CR; n = 59), or PR with maximum tumor shrinkage <75% (other PR; n = 129), were characterized in terms of their baseline characteristics. The median duration of response was 43.7 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.2-not estimable) for the CR group, 30.5 mo (95% CI 22.4-not estimable) for the near-CR group, and 17.2 mo (95% CI 12.5-21.4) for the other PR group. The 36-mo OS rates were consistently high in the CR (97%), near-CR (86%), and other PR (62%) groups. Robust objective response rates were observed across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium favorable-risk (69%, 95% CI 60-78%), intermediate-risk (73%, 95% CI 67-79%), and poor-risk (70%, 95% CI 54-85%) subgroups. The robust response to L + P supports this combination as a standard-of-care first-line treatment for patients with aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: The CLEAR trial enrolled patients with advanced kidney cancer who had not previously received any treatment for their cancer. Here we report results for tumor shrinkage observed in the group that received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination treatment during the trial. Shrinkage of target tumors with this combination was long-lasting and was observed in patients irrespective of their disease severity. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02811861.

Impact of Timing of Immunotherapy and Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Data on Survival Outcomes from the CKCis Database.

Immunotherapy-based systemic treatment (ST) is the standard of care for most patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has historically shown benefit for select patients with mRCC, but its role and timing are not well understood in the era of immunotherapy. The primary objective of this study is to assess outcomes in patients who received ST only, CN followed by ST (CN-ST), and ST followed by CN (ST-CN). The Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) database was queried to identify patients with de novo mRCC who received immunotherapy-based ST between January 2014 and June 2023. These patients were classified into three categories as described above. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the impact of the timing of ST and CN on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), after adjusting for the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, age, and comorbidities. Best overall response and complications of ST and CN for these cohorts were collected. A total of 588 patients were included in this study: 331 patients received ST only, 215 patients received CN-ST, and 42 patients received ST-CN. Patient and disease characteristics including age, gender, performance status, IMDC risk category, comorbidity, histology, type of ST, and metastatic sites are reported. OS analysis favored patients who received ST-CN (hazard ratio [HR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.68) and CN-ST (HR 0.68, CI 0.47-0.97) over patients who received ST only. PFS analysis showed a similar trend for ST-CN (HR 0.45, CI 0.26-0.77) and CN-ST (HR 0.9, CI 0.68-1.17). This study examined baseline features and outcomes associated with the use and timing of CN and ST using real-world data via a large Canadian real-world cohort. Patients selected to receive CN after ST demonstrated improved outcomes. There were no appreciable differences in perioperative complications across groups. Limitations include the small number of patients in the ST-CN group and residual confounding and selection biases that may influence the outcomes in patients undergoing CN.

Addressing controversial areas in the management of advanced prostate cancer in Canada Areas of consensus and controversy from the third Canadian consensus forum.

INTRODUCTION: The management of prostate cancer (PCa) is rapidly evolving. Treatment and diagnostic options grow annually, however, high-level evidence for the use of new therapeutics and diagnostics is lacking. In November 2022, the Genitourinary Research Consortium held its 3rd Canadian Consensus Forum (CCF3) to provide guidance on key controversial areas for management of PCa. METHODS: A steering committee of eight multidisciplinary physicians identified topics for discussion and adapted questions from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022 for CCF3. Questions focused on management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC); use of novel imaging, germline testing, and genomic profiling; and areas of non-consensus from CCF2. Fifty-eight questions were voted on during a live forum, with threshold for "consensus agreement" set at 75%. RESULTS: The voting panel consisted of 26 physicians: 13 urologists/uro-oncologists, nine medical oncologists, and four radiation oncologists. Consensus was reached for 32 of 58 questions (one ad-hoc). Consensus was seen in the use of local treatment, to not use metastasis-directed therapy for low-volume mCSPC, and to use triplet therapy for synchronous high-volume mCSPC (low prostate-specific antigen). Consensus was also reached on sufficiency of conventional imaging to manage disease, use of germline testing and genomic profiling for metastatic disease, and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for BRCA-positive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: CCF3 identified consensus agreement and provides guidance on >30 practice scenarios related to management of PCa and nine areas of controversy, which represent opportunities for research and education to improve patient care. Consensus initiatives provide valuable guidance on areas of controversy as clinicians await high-level evidence.

Outcomes of Patients with Brain Metastases from Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving First-line Therapies: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

Patients with brain metastases (BrM) from renal cell carcinoma and their outcomes are not well characterized owing to frequent exclusion of this population from clinical trials. We analyzed data for patients with or without BrM using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC). A total of 389/4799 patients (8.1%) had BrM on initiation of systemic therapy. First-line immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy was associated with longer median overall survival (OS; 32.7 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-not reached) versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy (20.6 mo, 95% CI 15.7-24.5; p = 0.019), as were intensive focal therapies with stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (31.4 mo, 95% CI 22.3-37.5) versus whole-brain radiotherapy alone or no focal therapy (16.5 mo, 95% CI 10.2-21.1; p = 0.028). On multivariable analysis, IO-based regimens (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.97; p = 0.040) and stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.78; p = 0.003) were independently associated with longer OS, as was IMDC favorable or intermediate risk (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.66; p < 0.001). Intensive systemic and focal therapies were associated with better prognosis in this population. Further studies should explore the clinical effectiveness of multimodal strategies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In a large group of patients with advanced kidney cancer, we found that 8.1% had brain metastases when starting systemic therapy. Patients with brain metastases had significantly poorer prognosis than those without brain metastases. Receipt of combination immunotherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, or neurosurgery was associated with longer overall survival.

Evaluating the impact of early identification of asymptomatic brain metastases in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been reported to be present in up to 25% of patients diagnosed with mRCC. There is limited published literature evaluating the role of routine intra-cranial imaging for the screening of asymptomatic BM in mRCC. AIMS: To evaluate the potential utility of routine intra-cranial imaging, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to characterize the outcomes of mRCC patients who presented with asymptomatic BM, as compared to symptomatic BM. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database was used to identify mRCC patients diagnosed with BM. This cohort was divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of BM symptoms. Details regarding patient demographics, disease characteristics, systemic treatments, BM characteristics and survival outcomes were extracted. Statistical analysis was through chi-square tests, analysis of variance, and Kaplan-Meier method to characterize survival outcomes. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. A total of 267 mRCC patients with BM were identified of which 106 (40%) presented with asymptomatic disease. The majority of patients presented with multiple (i.e., >1) BM (75%) with no significant differences noted in number of BM or BM-directed therapy received in symptomatic, as compared to asymptomatic BM patients. Median [95% confidence interval (CI)] overall survival (OS) from mRCC diagnosis was 42 months (95% CI: 32-62) for patients with asymptomatic BM, and 39 months (95% CI: 29-48) with symptomatic BM (p = 0.10). OS from time of BM diagnosis was 28 months (95% CI: 18-42) for the asymptomatic BM group, as compared to 13 months (95% CI: 10-21) in the symptomatic BM group (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Given a substantial proportion of patients may present with asymptomatic BM, limiting intra-cranial imaging to patients with symptomatic BM, may be associated with a missed opportunity for timely diagnosis and treatment. The utility of routine intra-cranial imaging in patients with renal cell carcinoma, warrants further prospective evaluation.

Comparison of patients with renal cell carcinoma in adjuvant therapy trials to a real-world population.

PURPOSE: To compare characteristics and outcomes of patients included versus those not in adjuvant therapy trials post complete resection of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Adult patients following complete resection for clear cell RCC between January 1, 2011, and March 31, 2021, were included. Patients had intermediate high, high risk nonmetastatic disease (modified UCLA Integrated Staging System) or fully resected metastatic (M1) disease as per the inclusion criteria of adjuvant studies. Demographic, clinical, and outcomes between trial and nontrial patients were compared. RESULTS: Of 1,459 eligible patients, 63 (4.3%) participated in an adjuvant trial. Disease characteristics were similar between groups. Trial patients were younger (mean age 58.1 vs. 63.6 years; P < 0.0001) and had lower Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (mean 4.2 vs. 4.9; P = 0.009). Unadjusted disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years for trial patients was 48.6% and 39.2% for nontrial patients (HR 0.71, 0.48-1.05, P = 0.08). Median DFS was higher for trial patients in comparison to nontrial patients (4.4 years, IQR 1.7- not reached; vs. 3.0 years, IQR 0.8-8.6; P = 0.08). Cancer specific survival (CSS) at 5 years for trial patients was 85.2% in comparison to 78.6% for nontrial patients (HR 0.45, 0.22-0.92, P = 0.03). Unadjusted estimated overall survival (OS) at 5 years was 80.8% for trial patients and 74.8% (HR 0.42, 0.18-0.94; P = 0.04) for nontrial patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in adjuvant trials were younger and healthier with longer CSS and OS in comparison to those not included in adjuvant trials. These findings may have implications when we generalize trial results to real world patients.

Real-world utilization and outcomes of docetaxel among older men with metastatic prostate cancer: a retrospective population-based cohort study in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of docetaxel for systemic treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), in both castration-sensitive (mCSPC) and castration-resistant (mCRPC) settings, is poorly understood. This study examined the real-world utilization of docetaxel in these patients and their outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective population-based study used administrative data from Ontario, Canada, to identify men aged ≥66 years who were diagnosed with de novo mCSPC or mCRPC between 2014 and 2019 and received docetaxel. The study assessed treatment tolerability and toxicity, and survival in both cohorts. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The study identified 11.2% (399/3556) and 13.2% (203/1534) patients diagnosed with de novo mCSPC and with mCRPC who received docetaxel respectively. The median age in both cohorts was 72 years (IQR: 68-76). Overall, 43.9% (n = 175) patients with de novo mCSPC and 52.1% (n = 85) with mCRPC completed ≥6 cycles of docetaxel. Over two-fifth also needed dose adjustments in both cohorts. Hospitalization or emergency department visit for febrile neutropenia were noted in 15.8% (n = 63) of de novo mCSPC patients and similarly in 19% (n = 31) of mCRPC cohort. The median survival of PCa patients who completed ≥6 cycles of docetaxel was significantly longer relative to those who completed <4 cycles: 32.7 vs. 23.5 months (p < 0.001) for mCSPC and 20.5 vs. 10.7 (p = 0.012) for mCRPC respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study of elderly patients with metastatic PCa, treatment with docetaxel was associated with poor tolerability and higher toxicity compared with clinical trials. Receipt of limited cycles and reduced overall dose of docetaxel were associated with inferior overall survival.