Case-control study assessing the impact of COVID19 in advanced kidney cancer patients treated with antiangiogenics or immunotherapy: the COVID-REN study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a risk factor for developing severe COVID19. Additionally, SARS-CoV2 has a special tropism for renal cells and complications like thrombosis or cytokine storm could be enhanced by standard treatments in kidney cancer (i.e., antiangiogenics or immunotherapy). Thus, understanding the impact of COVID19 in patients with this tumor is key for their correct management. METHODS: We designed a retrospective case-control study comparing the outcome of three groups of advanced kidney cancer patients on systemic treatment: cohort A (developed COVID19 while on antiangiogenics), cohort B (developed COVID19 while on immunotherapy) and cohort C (non-infected). Matching factors were age, gender, and treatment. RESULTS: 95 patients were recruited in 16 centers in Spain from September 2020 to May 2021. Finally, 85 were deemed as eligible (23 cohort A, 21 cohort B, 41 cohort C). Patients with COVID required more dose interruptions (25 vs. six) and hospitalizations (10 vs. none) than those without COVID (both p = 0.001). No difference between cohorts A and B was observed regarding hospitalization or length of stay. No ICU admission was registered and one patient in cohort B died due to COVID19. Regarding cancer evolution, three patients in cohort A presented progressive disease after COVID19 compared to two in cohort B. One case in cohort B, initially deemed as stable disease, achieved a partial response after COVID19. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney cancer patients who developed COVID19 while on systemic therapy required more treatment interruptions and hospitalizations than those non-infected. However, no significant impact on cancer outcome was observed. Also, no difference was seen between cases on antiangiogenics or immunotherapy.

Vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma pretreated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify evidence for use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based therapy. METHODS: This was a PRISMA-standard systematic literature review; registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255568). Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (January 28, 2021; updated September 13, 2022) to identify publications reporting efficacy/effectiveness and safety/tolerability evidence for anti-VEGF treatment in patients with RCC who had received prior CPI therapy. RESULTS: Of 2,639 publications screened, 48 were eligible and featured 2,759 patients treated in trials and 2,209 in real-world studies (RWS). Most patients with available data were treated with anti-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens (trials: 93 %; RWS: 100 %), most commonly cabozantinib, which accounted for 46 % of trial and 62 % of RWS patients in publications with available data. Collectively, there was consistent evidence of anti-VEGF treatment activity after prior CPI therapy. Activity was reported for all anti-VEGF regimens and regardless of prior CPI-based regimen. No new safety signals were detected for subsequent anti-VEGF therapy; no studies suggested increased immune-related adverse events associated with prior CPI therapy. The results were limited by data quality; study heterogeneity prohibited meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Based on the available data (most commonly for cabozantinib), anti-VEGF therapy appears to be a rational treatment choice in patients with RCC who have progressed despite prior CPI-based therapy. Results from ongoing trials of combination anti-VEGF plus CPI regimen post prior CPI therapy trials will contribute more definitive evidence. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Anticancer treatments that work by reducing levels of a substance in the body called Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor are known as anti-VEGF drugs. Reducing VEGF levels helps to reduce blood supply to tumors, which can slow the speed at which the cancer grows. Some other types of anticancer drugs that help the immune system to fight cancer cells are called checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we looked at published studies that investigated how anti-VEGF drugs work, and what side effects they cause, in people who have already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors for a type of kidney cancer called renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to summarize the available evidence to help doctors decide how best to use anti-VEGF drugs in these patients. We found 48 studies that included almost 5,000 patients. The results of the studies showed that anti-VEGF drugs have anticancer effects in people with renal cell carcinoma who had already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors. All of the VEGF-targeting drugs had anticancer effects, irrespective of what checkpoint inhibitor treatment people had received before. There were different amounts of evidence available for the different anti-VEGF drugs. The anti-VEGF cabozantinib had the largest amount of evidence. Importantly, previous checkpoint inhibitor treatment did not seem to affect the number or type of side-effects associated with anti-VEGF drugs. Results from ongoing, well-designed studies will be helpful to confirm these results. Our findings may be useful for doctors considering using anti-VEGF drugs in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have received checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

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.

Prospective Assessment of Bone Metabolism Biomarkers and Survival in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radium-223: The PRORADIUM Study.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 is an active therapy option for bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The lack of adequate biomarkers for patient selection and response assessment are major drawbacks for its use. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognostic value of bone metabolism biomarkers (BMBs) in ra-223-treated mCRPC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study of mCRPC patients treated with Ra-223 (PRORADIUM study: NCT02925702) was conducted. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The main objective of the study was to evaluate the association between high (≥median) baseline values in at least three bone formation (bone alkaline phosphatase [BAP] and C-terminal type-I collagen propeptide) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide and pyridinoline) biomarkers, and survival. The independent prognostic value of each BMB was also assessed. The association with time to radiographic, clinical, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression; time to skeletal-related events; and PSA response were secondary objectives. Multivariable (MV) Cox-regression models were evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 169 patients were included. Of the patients, 70.4% received Ra-223 in second/third line; 144 (85.2%) were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1, 126 (74.6%) were in pain, and 80 (47.5%) had more than ten bone metastases. Sixty-seven (39.6%) patients had elevation in at least three BMBs. The median overall survival was 12.1 mo (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10-14.7). No association was observed with other treatment-related secondary outcome parameters. Patients with high values in three or more BMBs had significantly worse survival (9.9 vs 15.2 mo; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.8 [95% CI: 1.3-2.5]; p < 0.001) in the univariate analysis, but not independent in the MV analysis (HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.89-2; p = 0.181). High baseline BAP was the only biomarker associated with survival in the MV model (HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.28-2.79; p = 0.001). Addition of BAP to the MV clinical model increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 2-yr value from 0.667 to 0.755 (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Biomarkers of bone formation, especially BAP, have prognostic value in mCRPC patients treated with radium-223. Its predictive value remains to be assessed, ideally in prospective, adequately powered, randomised clinical trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we evaluate the role of bone metabolism biomarkers to help improve the use of radium-223 as therapy for advanced prostate cancer. We found that bone alkaline phosphatase may be a suitable tool.

Safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced penile cancer: report from the Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for penile squamous cell carcinoma are limited. We sought to investigate clinical outcomes and safety profiles of patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with locally advanced or metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors between 2015 and 2022 across 24 centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Objective response rates were determined per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 criteria. Treatment-related adverse events were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Two-sided statistical tests were used for comparisons. RESULTS: Among 92 patients, 8 (8.7%) were Asian, 6 (6.5%) were Black, and 24 (29%) were Hispanic and/or Latinx. Median (interquartile range) age was 62 (53-70) years. In all, 83 (90%) had metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma, and 74 (80%) had received at least second-line treatment. Most patients received pembrolizumab monotherapy (n = 26 [28%]), combination nivolumab-ipilimumab with or without multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n = 23 [25%]), or nivolumab (n = 16 [17%]) or cemiplimab (n = 15 [16%]) monotherapies. Median overall and progression-free survival were 9.8 months (95% confidence interval = 7.7 to 12.8 months) and 3.2 months (95% confidence interval = 2.5 to 4.2 months), respectively. The objective response rate was 13% (n = 11/85) in the overall cohort and 35% (n = 7/20) in patients with lymph node-only metastases. Visceral metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or higher, and a higher neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio were associated with worse overall survival. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 27 (29%) patients, and 9.8% (n = 9) of the events were grade 3 or higher. CONCLUSIONS: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are active in a subset of patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. Future translational studies are warranted to identify patients more likely to derive clinical benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors.

PBRM1 and KDM5C cooperate to define high-angiogenesis tumors and increased antiangiogenic response in renal cancer.

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) are key antiangiogenic drugs for renal cancer treatment. While Von Hippel-Lindau dysfunction constitutes the base for VEGFR-TKIs sensitivity, the role for individual and concurrent mutations in the genes encoding for the chromatin remodelers Polybromo-1 (PBRM1) and Lysine Demethylase 5C (KDM5C) is poorly understood. Here, we analyzed the tumor mutational and expression profiles of 155 unselected clear cell RCC (ccRCC) cases treated with first-line VEGFR-TKIs and the ccRCC cases of IMmotion151 trial were used for validation. We found that concurrent PBRM1 and KDM5C (PBRM1&KDM5C) mutations occurred in 4-9% of cases and were enriched in Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center favorable-risk patients. In our cohort, tumors only mutated in PBRM1 or concurrently mutated in PBRM1 and KDM5C had increased angiogenesis (P=0.0068 and 0.039; respectively), and tumors only mutated in KDM5C showed a similar trend. Best response to VEGFR-TKIs corresponded to PBRM1&KDM5C mutated cases, followed by those mutated only in KDM5C or only in PBRM1 (P=0.050, 0.040 and 0.027 versus non-mutated cases, respectively), with a trend for longer progression free survival (PFS) in the group with only PBRM1 mutated (HR=0.64; P=0.059). Validation in the IMmotion151 trial revealed a similar correlation with increased angiogenesis and the PFS of patients in the VEGFR-TKI-arm was the longest in PBRM1&KDM5C mutated cases, intermediate for only PBRM1 or only KDM5C mutated patients and the shortest in non-mutated cases (P=0.009 and 0.025, for PBRM1&KDM5C and PBRM1 versus non-mutated cases). In conclusion, somatic PBRM1 and KDM5C mutations are common in patients with metastatic ccRCC and likely cooperate increasing tumor angiogenesis and VEGFR-TKI-based antiangiogenic therapy benefit.

Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib monotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma after progression with previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment (CONTACT-03): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are the standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, yet optimised treatment of patients whose disease progresses after these therapies is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine whether adding atezolizumab to cabozantinib delayed disease progression and prolonged survival in patients with disease progression on or after previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. METHODS: CONTACT-03 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, done in 135 study sites in 15 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed with immune checkpoint inhibitors were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus cabozantinib (60 mg orally once daily) or cabozantinib alone. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-response or web-response system in permuted blocks (block size four) and stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group, line of previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and renal cell carcinoma histology. The two primary endpoints were progression-free survival per blinded independent central review and overall survival. The primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04338269, and is closed to further accrual. FINDINGS: From July 28, 2020, to Dec 27, 2021, 692 patients were screened for eligibility, 522 of whom were assigned to receive atezolizumab-cabozantinib (263 patients) or cabozantinib (259 patients). 401 (77%) patients were male and 121 (23%) patients were female. At data cutoff (Jan 3, 2023), median follow-up was 15·2 months (IQR 10·7-19·3). 171 (65%) patients receiving atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 166 (64%) patients receiving cabozantinib had disease progression per central review or died. Median progression-free survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·8-12·3) with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 10·8 months (10·0-12·5) with cabozantinib (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death 1·03 [95% CI 0·83-1·28]; p=0·78). 89 (34%) patients in the atezolizumab-cabozantinib group and 87 (34%) in the cabozantinib group died. Median overall survival was 25·7 months (95% CI 21·5-not evaluable) with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and was not evaluable (21·1-not evaluable) with cabozantinib (HR for death 0·94 [95% CI 0·70-1·27]; p=0·69). Serious adverse events occurred in 126 (48%) of 262 patients treated with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 84 (33%) of 256 patients treated with cabozantinib; adverse events leading to death occurred in 17 (6%) patients in the atezolizumab-cabozantinib group and nine (4%) in the cabozantinib group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of atezolizumab to cabozantinib did not improve clinical outcomes and led to increased toxicity. These results should discourage sequential use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with renal cell carcinoma outside of clinical trials. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Exelixis.

Meta-analysis of perioperative immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma: Available, but the jury is still out.

INTRODUCTION: While surgical management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is curative for many patients, others may relapse and could benefit from adjuvant treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been proposed as a potential adjuvant therapy for improving survival in these patients, but the benefit/risk ratio of ICI in the perioperative setting remains unclear. METHODS: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of phase III trials of perioperative ICI (anti PD1/PD-L1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 agents) in RCC was conducted. RESULTS: The analysis included results from 4 phase III trials, comprising 3,407 patients. ICI did not show a significant increase in disease-free survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.04; p: 0.11) or overall survival [OS] (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40-1.34; p: 0.31). High-grade adverse events were more frequent in the immunotherapy arm (OR 2.65; 95% CI 1.53-4.59; p: <0.001), and high-grade treatment-related adverse events were 8 times more frequent in the experimental arm (OR: 8.07; 95% CI: 3.14-20.75; p: <0.001). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences favoring the experimental arm in females (HR: 0.71; 95 CI 0.55-0.92; p: 0.009), in sarcomatoid differentiation (HR: 0.60 95% CI 0.41-0.89; p: 0.01), and PD-L1 positive tumors (HR HR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.61-0.90; p: 0.003). No significant effect was found in patients according to age, type of nephrectomy (radical vs. partial), and stage (M1 without evidence of disease vs. M0 patients). CONCLUSION: Our comprehensive meta-analysis generally suggests that immunotherapy does not confer a survival advantage in the perioperative setting for RCC, with the exception of one positive study. While the overall results are not statistically significant, individual patient factors and other variables may play a role in determining who benefits from immunotherapy. Therefore, despite the mixed findings, immunotherapy may still be a viable treatment option for certain patients, and further studies are needed to determine which patient subgroups would be most likely to benefit.

Long-term Clinical Outcomes of a Spanish Cohort of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients with a Complete Response to Sunitinib.

INTRODUCTION: The long-term clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and a complete response (CR) to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib are poorly known. The characteristics of these patients could reveal previously undetected associations with clinical variables. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational, retrospective study (ATILA) used data from a registry of patients with mRCC who had received first-line sunitinib and had achieved CR from 2007 to 2018 in Spain. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients with CR were included; 48 patients (77.4%) received sunitinib in monotherapy and 14 (22.6%) combined with or followed by local treatment. Median age was 58.5 years (range, 32-81). Most patients (79.0%) had clear cell histology and had undergone previous nephrectomy (90.3%). The majority (70.2%) had an intermediate IMDC prognosis, 23% favorable and 7.0% poor. The median time on treatment with sunitinib was 28.2 months (IQR, 16.7-41.0) and the median time to CR was 10.9 months (IQR, 7.2-19.3). After a median follow-up of 8 years (range, 3-13 years), the median PFS was not reached. The overall median duration of complete response was 64.1 months (IQR, 32.2-99.4). The tolerance and safety profile of sunitinib was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: Durable CR to sunitinib was observed in patients regardless the prognosis group, metastasis site or histology type, with 75% of patients remaining in CR after 10 years. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03916458.

New prognostic model in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Bellmunt Risk Score, based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), hemoglobin levels and presence of liver metastases, is the most established prognostic algorithm for patients with advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy. Nevertheless, existing algorithms may not be sufficient following the introduction of immunotherapy. Our aim was to develop an improved prognostic model in patients receiving second-line atezolizumab for aUC. METHODS: Patients with aUC progressing after cisplatin/carboplatin-based chemotherapy and enrolled in the prospective, single-arm, phase IIIb SAUL study were included in this analysis. Patients were treated with 3-weekly atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously. The development and internal validation of a prognostic model for overall survival (OS) was performed using Cox regression analyses, bootstrapping methods and calibration. RESULTS: In 936 patients, ECOG PS, alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, liver metastases, bone metastases and time from last chemotherapy were identified as independent prognostic factors. In a 4-tier model, median OS for patients with 0-1, 2, 3-4 and 5-7 risk factors was 18.6, 10.4, 4.8 and 2.1 months, respectively. Compared with Bellmunt Risk Score, this model provided enhanced prognostic separation, with a c-index of 0.725 vs 0.685 and increment in c-statistic of 0.04 (p<0.001). Inclusion of PD-L1 expression did not improve the model. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and internally validated a prognostic model for patients with aUC receiving postplatinum immunotherapy. This model represents an improvement over the Bellmunt algorithm and could aid selection of patients with aUC for second-line immunotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02928406.

Successful Pregnancy and Cancer Outcomes With Ipilimumab and Nivolumab for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Pregnancy and cancer share CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 as some of the immunomodulatory pathways that reshape the immune system from a destructive response to a state of tolerance to the fetus and the tumor, respectively. Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 inhibitor) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1 inhibitor) are used in combination for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and their use could theoretically result in an immune response against the fetus. Furthermore, these immune checkpoint inhibitors are immunoglobulin G antibodies that transfer from the mother to the fetus and may cause a direct toxicity. We present the first report of a metastatic renal cell carcinoma patient in which ipilimumab and nivolumab were successfully used starting in her first trimester of pregnancy, with sufficient follow-up to show favorable outcomes for both the mother and the child. We describe our management of this challenging case and we review the available evidence, coming from Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Studies and case reports of metastatic melanoma patients.

Frontline immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with poor performance status.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapy (ICI-based combination) is a new standard of care for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the frontline setting. Patients with poor performance status (PS) (≥2) were excluded from pivotal trials. Hence, the activity and safety of ICI-based combination therapy in this group of patients is still unknown. METHODS: We performed a multicentre retrospective study of PS ≥2 mRCC patients who received frontline ICI-based combination, either nivolumab-ipilimumab (NI) or pembrolizumab-axitinib (AP). Patients' characteristics, clinical outcomes, and toxicity were collected. We analysed overall response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS) and grade ≥3 adverse events (G ≥ 3AEs). The association between the predictive biomarker IPI (immune prognostic index) and ORR/PFS/OS was also evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 70 mRCC patients with PS ≥2 treated with ICI-based combination across 14 institutions between October 2017 and December 2021, including 45 and 25 patients were treated with NI and AP, respectively. Median age at diagnosis was 63 years, 51 (73%) were male, only 17 (24%) had prior nephrectomy, 50 (71%) had synchronous metastatic disease at diagnosis, and 16 (23%) had brain metastases. Sixty-one (87%) and 9 (13%) patients had ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) PS 2 and 3, respectively, and 25 (36%) and 45 (64%) patients were intermediate and poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk, respectively. Among all, 91% were clear cell RCC, 7 patients had sarcomatoid features. At the time of the analysis (median follow-up 11.1 months), 41% patients were dead. Median PFS and mOS in the entire cohort were 5.4 months and 16.0 months, respectively; ORR was 31%. No significant differences in ORR, PFS, OS, or G ≥3AEs were seen between NI and AP. The intermediate and poor IPI groups were significantly associated with reduced ORR and shorter PFS. CONCLUSION: We report the first cohort of PS ≥2 mRCC patients treated with frontline ICI-based combination therapy. The survival outcomes in our cohort were inferior to that reported in pivotal trials. No significant differences in ORR, PFS, OS or toxicity were seen between NI and AP. Prospective real-world studies are needed to confirm these results.

Characterization of plasma circulating small extracellular vesicles in patients with metastatic solid tumors and newly diagnosed brain metastasis.

Nearly 40% of the advanced cancer patients will present brain metastases during the course of their disease, with a 2-year life expectancy of less than 10%. Immune system impairment, including the modulation of both STAT3 and PD-L1, is one of the hallmarks of brain metastases. Liquid biopsy could offer several advantages in brain metastases management, such as the possibility of noninvasive dynamic monitoring. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have been recently proposed as novel biomarkers especially useful in liquid biopsy due to their secretion in biofluids and their role in cell communication during tumor progression. The main aim of this work was to characterize the size and protein cargo of plasma circulating EVs in patients with solid tumors and their correlation with newly diagnosed brain metastases, in addition to their association with other relevant clinical variables. We analyzed circulating EVs in the plasma of 123 patients: 42 patients with brain metastases, 50 without brain metastases and 31 healthy controls. Patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases had a lower number of circulating EVs in the plasma and a higher protein concentration in small EVs (sEVs) compared to patients without brain metastases and healthy controls. Interestingly, melanoma patients with brain metastases presented decreased STAT3 activation and increased PD-L1 levels in circulating sEVs compared to patients without central nervous system metastases. Decreased STAT3 activation and increased PD-L1 in plasma circulating sEVs identify melanoma patients with brain metastasis.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Combination Therapy versus Sunitinib as First-Line Treatment for Favorable-IMDC-Risk Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Novel combination therapies have been shown to improve the outcomes of treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). However, the optimal systemic therapy for aRCC of favorable risk has yet to be clarified. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different immunotherapy (IO) combinations, either with another IO (IO-IO) or with an antiangiogenic (IO-TKI), versus sunitinib in the first-line setting in aRCC patients with favorable IMDC risk. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for evidence in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published up to February 2021. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. Survival hazard ratios were extracted for analysis in the favorable-risk aRCC subgroup (IMDC). A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding trials of combination therapy without TKI. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled phase III trials with a total of 1088 patients were included in the analysis. The studies compared different combinations versus sunitinib monotherapy. All clinical trials reported overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) data. Four out of five trials reported complete response (CR). There was no difference in OS nor PFS between treatment arms in the IMDC favorable-risk subgroup analysis (OS: HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.81-1.41; PFS: HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.46-1.19). A benefit in ORR and CR was found for combination therapy vs. sunitinib (ORR: HR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.29-2.76; CR: HR = 3.58, 95% CI = 2.04-6.28). In the sensitivity analysis, including only IO-TKI vs. sunitinib, no difference in OS was found; however, an advantage in PFS was observed (OS: HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.69-1.43; PFS: HR = 0.60 (0.45-0.81). The safety profile reported is consistent with previous reports. We did not find differences in the incidence of any adverse event (AE) or of grade ≥3 AEs. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that combinations of IO-KI as first-line treatment in favorable-IMDC-risk aRCC improve PFS, ORR, and CR, but not OS, versus sunitinib.

Genomic Landscape of Vinflunine Response in Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) remains an incurable disease with limited treatment options after platinum-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). Vinflunine has shown a modest increase in overall survival and remains a therapeutic option for chemo- and immunotherapy refractory tumours. However, biomarkers that could identify responding patients to vinflunine and possible alternative therapies after failure to treatment are still missing. In this study, we aimed to identify potential genomic biomarkers of vinflunine response in mUC patient samples and potential management alternatives. METHODS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples of mUC patients (n = 23) from three university hospitals in Spain were used for genomic targeted-sequencing and transcriptome (using the Immune Profile panel by NanoString) analyses. Patients who received vinflunine after platinum-based chemotherapy failure were classified in non-responders (NR: progressive disease ≤ 3 months; n= 11) or responders (R: response ≥ 6 months; n = 12). RESULTS: Genomic characterization revealed that the most common alteration, TP53 mutations, had comparable frequency in R (6/12; 50%) and NR (4/11; 36%). Non-synonymous mutations in KTM2C (4/12; 33.3%), PIK3CA (3/12; 25%) and ARID2 (3/12; 25%) were predominantly associated with response. No significant difference was observed in tumour mutational burden (TMB) between R and NR patients. The NR tumours showed increased expression of diverse immune-related genes and pathways, including various interferon gamma-related genes. We also identified increased MAGEA4 expression as a potential biomarker of non-responding tumours to vinflunine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our data may help to identify potential genomic biomarkers of response to vinflunine. Moreover, tumours refractory to vinflunine showed immune signatures potentially associated with response to ICB. Extensive validation studies, including longitudinal series, are needed to corroborate these findings.

Immunotherapy maintenance therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC): a comprehensive review.

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the systemic treatment of solid tumors, including advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), providing durable responses with a favorable safety profile. Multiple immune checkpoint inhibitor agents have been approved in monotherapy in second-line setting, and for a selected group of chemo-naïve cisplatin-ineligible patients with high PD-L1 expression. Despite the incorporation of immunotherapy to the systemic treatment landscape of aUC, platinum-based chemotherapy remains the standard of care in frontline setting for vast majority of patients. Urothelial carcinoma is a chemosensitive disease with response rates of up to 50% to frontline chemotherapy. However, the response to chemotherapy is short lasting with vast majority of patients experiencing disease progression and death within months. In this context, maintenance therapy constitutes an attractive therapeutic strategy to maximize the time to treatment failure. Different cytotoxic and targeted agents have been investigated as maintenance therapy for aUC but have not shown an impact on survival. Avelumab has become the first and only drug to improve overall survival as maintenance therapy after frontline platinum-based therapy in aUC patients and the first drug to be approved in this setting. This article will review the rational for maintenance therapy, the different drugs investigated as maintenance therapy for aUC, and the impact of avelumab maintenance therapy as a new standard of care in the management of aUC.

Clinical Activity and Safety of Cabozantinib for Brain Metastases in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have been underrepresented in clinical trials, and effective systemic therapy is lacking. Cabozantinib shows robust clinical activity in metastatic RCC, but its effect on brain metastases remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical activity and toxic effects of cabozantinib to treat brain metastases in patients with metastatic RCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with metastatic RCC and brain metastases treated in 15 international institutions (US, Belgium, France, and Spain) between January 2014 and October 2020. Cohort A comprised patients with progressing brain metastases without concomitant brain-directed local therapy, and cohort B comprised patients with stable or progressing brain metastases concomitantly treated by brain-directed local therapy. EXPOSURES: Receipt of cabozantinib monotherapy at any line of treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Intracranial radiological response rate by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and toxic effects of cabozantinib. RESULTS: Of the 88 patients with brain metastases from RCC included in the study, 33 (38%) were in cohort A and 55 (62%) were in cohort B; the majority of patients were men (n = 69; 78%), and the median age at cabozantinib initiation was 61 years (range, 34-81 years). Median follow-up was 17 months (range, 2-74 months). The intracranial response rate was 55% (95% CI, 36%-73%) and 47% (95% CI, 33%-61%) in cohorts A and B, respectively. In cohort A, the extracranial response rate was 48% (95% CI, 31%-66%), median time to treatment failure was 8.9 months (95% CI, 5.9-12.3 months), and median overall survival was 15 months (95% CI, 9.0-30.0 months). In cohort B, the extracranial response rate was 38% (95% CI, 25%-52%), time to treatment failure was 9.7 months (95% CI, 6.0-13.2 months), and median overall survival was 16 months (95% CI, 12.0-21.9 months). Cabozantinib was well tolerated, with no unexpected toxic effects or neurological adverse events reported. No treatment-related deaths were observed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, cabozantinib showed considerable intracranial activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with RCC and brain metastases. Support of prospective studies evaluating the efficacy of cabozantinib for brain metastases in patients with RCC is critical.

Prognostic Score and Benefit from Abiraterone in First-line Metastatic, Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most available prognostic nomograms in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are derived from datasets not representative of the current treatment landscape. A prognostic nomogram for first-line mCRPC treatment was developed from patients treated in the PREVAIL study. OBJECTIVE: To validate the Armstrong model in the COU-AA-302 trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A post hoc analysis of mCRPC patients treated in the COU-AA-302 trial was carried out (NCT00887198). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The Armstrong prognostic model was applied to patients treated in COU-AA-302. A continuous risk score was derived from coefficients from the original model. Time-dependent area under the curve (tAUC) was used to evaluate the overall predictive ability of the model. Patients were categorized according to the number of risk factors present into those at a low (three or fewer risk factors), intermediate (four to six risk factors), and high (seven to ten risk factors) risk. The association with survival was assessed with Cox regression models. Interaction tests were used to assess the impact of treatment arm in each of the prognostic groups. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1088 patients were analyzed. The risk score was associated with overall survival (OS; tAUC 0.733). Most patients were at a low (49%) or intermediate (41%) risk. Risk category was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9-2.4; p < 0.001), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.5-1.8; p < 0.001), and prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.5-1.9; p < 0.001). A significant interaction between risk group and OS (p = 0.007) and rPFS (p = 0.009) was observed. Survival was superior in low-risk patients (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.89; p = 0.009), but similar in intermediate-risk (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.79-1.21; p = 0.9) and high-risk (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.80-2.28; p = 0.5) patients. Two-year OS rates in abiraterone versus placebo were 82% versus 74% in low-risk, 55% versus 52% in intermediate-risk, and 28% versus 31% in high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: We validate the prognostic value of the Armstrong risk model in patients treated with first-line androgen receptor signaling inhibitors. Abiraterone provided a greater benefit in low-risk patients with less aggressive disease. Further research is needed to establish the role of Armstrong risk groups for treatment selection in mCRPC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we validated the Armstrong nomogram in the COU-AA-302 trial population. We found a similar prognostic performance to that of the original model. Good-risk patients received the greatest benefit from abiraterone.