Toripalimab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: RENOTORCH, a randomized, open-label, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors are standard treatments for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This phase III RENOTORCH study compared the efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for the first-line treatment of patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk unresectable or metastatic RCC were randomized in a ratio of 1 : 1 to receive toripalimab (240 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily) or sunitinib [50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle) or 2 weeks (3-week cycle)]. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). The secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 421 patients were randomized to receive toripalimab plus axitinib (n = 210) or sunitinib (n = 211). With a median follow-up of 14.6 months, toripalimab plus axitinib significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 35% compared with sunitinib as assessed by an IRC [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.86; P = 0.0028]. The median PFS was 18.0 months in the toripalimab-axitinib group, whereas it was 9.8 months in the sunitinib group. The IRC-assessed ORR was significantly higher in the toripalimab-axitinib group compared with the sunitinib group (56.7% versus 30.8%; P < 0.0001). An OS trend favoring toripalimab plus axitinib was also observed (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.92). Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 61.5% of patients in the toripalimab-axitinib group and 58.6% of patients in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSION: In patients with previously untreated intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC, toripalimab plus axitinib provided significantly longer PFS and higher ORR than sunitinib and had a manageable safety profile TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04394975.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 8-year follow-up results of efficacy and safety from the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and durable response benefits versus sunitinib (SUN) with long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated analyses with 8 years of median follow-up from CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with aRCC (N = 1096) were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × four doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. The endpoints included OS, independent radiology review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and IRRC-assessed objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) patients. RESULTS: With 8 years (99.1 months) of median follow-up, the hazard ratio [HR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.72 (0.62-0.83) in ITT patients, 0.69 (0.59-0.81) in I/P patients, and 0.82 (0.60-1.13) in FAV patients. PFS probabilities at 90 months were 22.8% versus 10.8% (ITT), 25.4% versus 8.5% (I/P), and 12.7% versus 17.0% (FAV), respectively. ORR with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 39.5% versus 33.0% (ITT), 42.4% versus 27.5% (I/P), and 29.6% versus 51.6% (FAV). Rates of complete response were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (ITT, 12.0% versus 3.5%; I/P, 11.8% versus 2.6%; FAV, 12.8% versus 6.5%). The median duration of response (95% CI) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 76.2 versus 25.1 months [59.1 months-not estimable (NE) versus 19.8-33.2 months] in ITT patients, 82.8 versus 19.8 months (54.1 months-NE versus 16.4-26.4 months) in I/P patients, and 61.5 versus 33.2 months (27.8 months-NE versus 24.8-51.4 months) in FAV patients. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. Exploratory post hoc analyses are reported for FAV patients, those receiving subsequent therapy based on their response status, clinical subpopulations, and adverse events over time. CONCLUSIONS: Superior survival, durable response benefits, and a manageable safety profile were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 8 years, the longest phase III follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in aRCC.

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.

On-treatment risk model for predicting treatment response in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The field of immunotherapy combinations for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) has been expanded in recent years. However, the treatment response varies widely among individual patients. It is still a challenge to predict oncological outcome in clinical practice. We assessed the impact of an activated immune system reflected by changes in C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and the early onset of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) on the treatment response. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of 57 aRCC patients, CRP kinetics based on previous descriptions of CRP flare-response, CRP response or CRP non-response, and the TRAEs, which occurred within a month after therapy initiation, were obtained for this study. According to logistic regression analysis of both factors, we stratified the patients into risk groups: the presence of CRP flare-response/response and early onset of TRAE (low-risk group); the presence of a single factor (intermediate-risk group); and without both factors (high-risk group). RESULTS: Ten patients (17%) experienced primary disease progression. No progressive disease was observed in the low-risk group, while 60% (n = 6/10) of the high-risk group showed a primary disease progression. Significantly, an increased risk of disease progression was observed by patients without CRP response and TRAEs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present analysis displays the predictive value of the on-treatment risk model based on CRP kinetics and the early onset of TRAEs, which can be easy to implement in clinical practice to optimize the treatment monitoring.

Preoperative prognostic model for localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma: Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group.

BACKGROUND: The Modified International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Dataset Consortium model (mIMDC) is a preoperative prognostic model for pT3cN0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study aimed to validate the mIMDC and to construct a new model in a localized and locally advanced RCC (LLRCC). METHODS: A database was established (the Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group database) consisting of 79 patients who were clinically diagnosed with LLRCC (cT3b/c/4NanyM0) and underwent radical nephrectomy from December 2007 to May 2018. Using univariable and multivariable analyses, we retrospectively analyzed disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in this database, constructed a new prognostic model according to these results, and estimated the model fit using c-index on the new and mIMDC models. RESULTS: Independent poorer prognostic factors for both DFS and OS include the following: ≥ 1 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, 2.0 mg/dL C-reactive protein, and > upper normal limit of white blood cell count. The median DFS in the favorable (no factor), intermediate (one factor), and poor-risk group (two or three factors) was 76.1, 14.3, and 4.0 months, respectively (P < 0.001). The 3-year OS in the favorable, intermediate, and poor-risk group were 92%, 44%, and 0%, respectively (P < 0.001). The c-indices of the new and mIMDC models were 0.67 and 0.60 for DFS (P = 0.060) and 0.74 and 0.63 for OS (P = 0.012), respectively. CONCLUSION: The new preoperative prognostic model in LLRCC can be used in patient care and clinical trials.

Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

Prognostic Impact of Trial-Eligibility Criteria in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of trial-eligibility criteria on outcome in real-world metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: mRCC patients treated with TKIs as first-line systemic therapy were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were determined as trial-ineligible when they met at least 1 following trial-ineligible criteria; Karnofsky performance status score <70, hemoglobin <9.0 g/dL, creatinine >2.4 mg/dL (male) or >2.0 mg/dL (female), calcium >12.0 mg/dL, platelet <100,000 /µL, neutrophil <1,500 /µL, nonclear-cell histology, and brain metastasis. RESULTS: Of 238 patients, 101 patients (42%) were determined as trial-ineligible. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after the TKI initiation were significantly shorter in the trial-ineligible patients than in the trial-eligible patients (median PFS: 5.53 vs. 15.8 months, p < 0.0001; OS: 13.8 vs. 43.4 months, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate was also significantly lower in the trial-ineligible patients (15% vs. 37%, p = 0.0003). Multivariate analysis further showed that the trial-eligibility was an independent factor for PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.46, p < 0.0001) and OS (HR: 2.39, p < 0.0001). In addition, the number of trial-ineligible factors were negatively correlated with PFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: In real-word, the substantial number of mRCC patients did not meet the trial-eligibility criteria, and their outcome was worse than that in the trial-eligible patients. Further studies focusing on the outcome in real-world trial-ineligible patients in the immune checkpoint inhibitor era are warranted.

Comprehensive assessments of immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapies as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Over the last decade, there have been substantial progress in the field of systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Through the transition from treatment with cytokines to molecular-targeted agents, and currently to immuno-oncology drugs, the prognostic outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma have been markedly improved. In particular, based on the promising outcomes of recently conducted pivotal randomized clinical trials, immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapy by either dual immune checkpoint inhibition or combined inhibition of an immune checkpoint and tyrosine kinase, is currently regarded as a standard of care for treatment-naïve advanced renal cell carcinoma patients. However, insufficient data are available with respect to the selection of optimal systemic therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma in the first-line setting due to the lack of a head-to-head comparison between approved immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapies. In this review, therefore, we summarize interesting findings associated with first-line combination therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma obtained from both randomized clinical trials and real-world clinical practices, in order to present useful guidance to help make treatment decisions for patients with treatment-naïve advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Association of tumor burden with outcome in first-line therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab for previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prognostic impact of tumor burden in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy for previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 62 patients with IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk mRCC, treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy at five affiliated institutions. Tumor burden was defined as the sum of diameters of baseline targeted lesions according to the RECIST version.1.1. We categorized the patients into two groups based on the median value of tumor burden (i.e., high vs. low). The association of tumor burden with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment was analyzed. RESULTS: The median tumor burden was 63.0 cm (interquartile range: 34.2-125.8). PFS was significantly shorter in patients with high tumor burden (n = 31) than in those with low tumor burden (n = 31) (median: 6.08 [95% CI: 2.73-9.70] vs. 12.5 [4.77-24.0] months, P = 0.0134). In addition, OS tended to be shorter in patients with high tumor burden; however, there was no statistically significant difference (1-year rate: 77.3 vs. 96.7%, P = 0.166). ORR was not significantly different between patients with high and low tumor burden (35 vs. 55%, P = 0.202). Multivariate analysis of PFS further showed that tumor burden was an independent factor (HR: 2.22 [95% CI: 1.11-4.45], P = 0.0242). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor burden might be a useful factor for outcome prediction, at least for PFS prediction, in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for mRCC. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

Sequential immune-targeted surgical therapy resulted in disease-free survival in a case with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Currently, immunotherapy is indicated for patients with metastatic RCC or unresectable RCC, but there is no indication for immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. We report a case in which the combined use of nivolumab and ipilimumab and sequential TKI therapy enabled surgical treatment. CASE PRESENTATION: A 71-year-old female was diagnosed with a metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma with a level IV tumor thrombus. She was started on nivolumab-ipilimumab therapy, and was switched to pazopanib monotherapy because the tumor thrombus progressed within the right atrium. The tumor shrank to resectable status with sequential therapy. She then underwent right nephrectomy and thrombectomy. Pathological analysis showed 10-20% residual tumor in the primary tumor, but no viable cells in tumor thrombus. She remains clinically disease-free 1 year after surgery. CONCLUSION: This case suggests the utility of sequential immune-targeted therapy as neoadjuvant therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Infiltrative tumor interface with normal renal parenchyma in locally advanced renal cell carcinoma: Clinical relevance and pathological implications.

OBJECTIVES: Locally advanced renal cell carcinoma is considered clinically aggressive, despite heterogeneity in survival outcomes. We investigated the clinical relevance and pathological implications of infiltrative tumor interface with normal renal parenchyma on preoperative imaging in locally advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 77 patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (≥pT3a Nany M0) who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy (2008-2018) were analyzed. Preoperative dynamic computed tomography images were reviewed to assess radiological infiltrative features. A radiological infiltrative feature was defined as an ill-defined tumor interface with normal renal parenchyma. The tumor interfaces were analyzed histologically and compared with radiological findings. RESULTS: The median tumor size was 6.4 cm. Lymphadenopathy was observed in four patients (5.2%). Clear cell renal cell carcinoma was diagnosed in 66 patients (86%) and Fuhrman grade was 3-4 in 38 patients (49%). A total of 30 patients (39%) showed radiological infiltrative features, which were significantly associated with larger tumor size and higher clinical T stage. The specificity and sensitivity of radiological infiltrative features in predicting pathological renal parenchymal infiltration were 90 and 64%, respectively. During a median follow-up period of 3.8 years, 27 patients (35%) developed cancer recurrences, and six patients (7.8%) died of renal cell carcinoma. Multivariable analysis showed that the presence of radiological infiltrative features was an independent risk factor for cancer recurrence. Cancer recurrence and cancer-specific mortality were significantly stratified by the presence or absence of radiological infiltrative features (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Locally advanced renal cell carcinoma can show radiological infiltrative features preoperatively, which are significantly associated with unfavorable prognosis. Radiological infiltrative features on preoperative imaging correspond with a high specificity to pathological renal parenchymal infiltration.

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

Treatment patterns, outcomes and clinical characteristics in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a real-world US study.

Aim: Assessing treatment patterns, outcomes and clinical characteristics in advanced renal cell carcinoma clinical practice. Materials & methods: A US cross-sectional physician survey conducted February-September 2019. Results: Surveyed physicians reported first-line treatment of 445 patients involving tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy (51.0%), immuno-oncology (IO/IO combination) therapy (25.8%) or other regimens (23.1%). A total of 60.9% had physician-assessed IMDC risk. Of these 61.9, 50.9 and 27.6% of patients with favorable, intermediate and poor risk, respectively, received tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy. A total of 16.7, 26.9 and 34.5% of patients with favorable, intermediate or poor risk received IO/IO combination therapy. Complete/partial responses (∼35% patients) remained comparable across first-line treatments. Conclusion: Guideline-recommended therapies are not widely prescribed. Many patients experienced poor clinical outcomes highlighting a need for more effective treatments.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma: analysis of Japanese patients in CheckMate 214 with extended follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) demonstrated superior efficacy over sunitinib (SUN) for previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in CheckMate 214, with a manageable safety profile. We report efficacy and safety with extended follow-up amongst Japanese patients. METHODS: CheckMate 214 patients received NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, then NIVO (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). This subgroup analysis assessed overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate/poor-risk and intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and safety (ITT patients). RESULTS: Of 550 and 546 patients randomized to NIVO+IPI and SUN, 38 and 34, respectively, were Japanese. Of these, 31 (NIVO+IPI) and 29 (SUN) patients were IMDC intermediate/poor-risk. In IMDC intermediate/poor-risk patients with 30 months' minimum follow-up, there was a delayed trend in OS benefit with NIVO+IPI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-1.59; P = 0.2670), and 24-month OS probability favoured NIVO+IPI (84%) versus SUN (76%). The ORR was 39% with NIVO+IPI and 31% with SUN (P = 0.6968). PFS was similar in both treatment arms (HR 1.17; 95% CI: 0.62-2.20; P = 0.6220). Efficacy in ITT patients was similar to IMDC intermediate/poor-risk patients. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event incidence was lower with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (58 versus 91%). CONCLUSIONS: Japanese patients with untreated aRCC in the NIVO+IPI arm had a numerically higher ORR and improved safety profile versus patients in the SUN arm. A delayed OS benefit appears to be emerging with NIVO+IPI. Longer follow-up is needed. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749?term=NCT02231749&rank=1 identifier: NCT02231749.

[Long term follow-up results of anlotinib in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma].

Objective: Anlotinib is an oral multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with dual effects of anti-proliferation and anti-angiogenesis. Phase Ⅰ clinical trials showed anlotinib was well tolerated and had therapeutic effects on a variety of tumors. The aim of this study is to explore the safety and efficacy of anlotinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Between January 2014 and November 2015, a single-center data was obtained from a phase Ⅱ clinical study of anlotinib versus sunitinib on advanced renal cell carcinoma and a phase Ⅱ clinical study of anlotinib on advanced renal cell carcinoma which failed to respond to TKI treatment. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, while Log-rank test was used to compare the survival rates. Results: A total of 36 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were enrolled in this study, including 19 patients without any target drug treatment, 12 patients with sunitinib treatment and 5 patients with sorafenib treatment. The median number of treatment cycle was 16. Partial response (PR) was obtained in 11 patients (30.6%) and stable disease (SD) was obtained in 24 patients (66.7%). The disease control rate (DCR) was 97.2%. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 12.6 months, the 1-year survival rate was 80.6%, and the median survival time was 22.2 months. Up to the follow-up deadline, 3 patients still received treatment, the PFSs were 52.6 months, 65.0 months, and 66.7 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 included hypertension (19.4%), hand-foot skin reaction (11.1%), proteinuria (5.6%) and anemia (5.6%). Conclusions: Anlotinib shows good anti-tumor activity and is generally well-tolerated in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. The adverse reactions of anlotinib are milder than sunitinib or pazopanib.

Efficacy of cryoablation combined with sorafenib for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of cryoablation combined with sorafenib for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted an observational study in 156 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma unsuitable for surgical treatment. Participants received cryoablation + sorafenib (n = 67) or sorafenib only (n = 89). Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival time (PFS), overall survival (OS), change in immune function after treatment, rate of adverse events, and quality of life were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In the cryoablation + sorafenib group, ORR and DCR were significantly higher and PFS and OS were significantly longer than in the sorafenib only group (both p < .05). Immune function-related indicators were significantly improved after treatment in the cryoablation + sorafenib group (p < .05), but no significant difference was found between before and after treatment in the sorafenib only group (p > .05). The incidence of targeted drug-related side effects was not significantly different between the groups (p > .05), and cryoablation did not increase the risk of side effects of targeted drugs. CONCLUSION: Cryoablation combined with sorafenib had superior clinical efficacy compared with sorafenib-only for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma unsuitable for surgical treatment. Moreover, this combined therapy may enhance the body's anti-tumor immunity and effectively prolong PFS and OS without compromising patient quality of life, thus representing a new treatment strategy for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma and pathologic nodal disease: Implications for American Joint Committee on Cancer staging.

BACKGROUND: Lymph node (LN) metastases are associated with poor outcomes for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study compared the survival outcomes of patients with stage III, node-positive disease (pT123 N1 M0 ) and patients with stage III, node-negative disease (pT3 N0 M0 ). METHODS: A database of 4652 patients with RCC of any histological subtype treated with surgery at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from 1993 to 2012 was retrospectively assessed. A total of 115 patients with pT123 N1 M0 disease, 274 patients with pT3 N0 M0 disease, and 523 patients with pT123 N0/x M1 disease were included. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were estimated and compared between each cohort. RESULTS: Median OS and CSS times were significantly better for pT3 N0 M0 patients than pT123 N1 M0 patients (OS, 10.2 vs 2.4 years, P < .0001; CSS, not reached vs 2.8 years, P < .0001). Similar median OS and CSS times were noted for pT123 N1 M0 and pT123 N0/x M1 patients (OS, 2.4 vs 2.4 years; P = .62; CSS, 2.8 vs 2.4 years; P = .10). In a multivariate analysis, tumor grade (hazard ratio [HR] for OS, 2.47; P < .0001; HR for CSS, 2.99; P < .0001) and pathologic LN involvement (HR for OS, 2.44; P < .0001; HR for CSS, 2.85; P < .0001) were associated with worse OS and CSS. CONCLUSIONS: Among RCC patients classified with stage III disease, those with pT123 N1 M0 disease had significantly worse survival than those with pT3 N0 M0 disease. OS and CSS were similar for patients with pT123 N1 M0 disease and patients with pT123 N0/x M1 disease (stage IV). If validated, these findings suggest that RCC patients with nodal disease should be reclassified as having stage IV disease.

Economic evaluation of nivolumab as a second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma from US and Chinese perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is a new standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and provides an overall survival benefit of 5.40 months in comparison with everolimus. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the second-line treatment of mRCC from the perspective of US payers and identified the range of drug costs for which the addition of nivolumab to standard therapy could be considered cost-effective from a Chinese perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was constructed to estimate lifetime costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were estimated for the US and Chinese health care systems. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Nivolumab provided an additional 0.29 QALYs at a cost of $151,676/QALY in the United States. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, at the current cost of nivolumab, the chance of nivolumab being cost-effective was 3.10%. For China, when nivolumab cost less than $7.90 or $9.70/mg, there was a nearly 90% likelihood that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab would be less than $22,785 or $48,838/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For the United States, nivolumab is unlikely to be a high-value treatment for mRCC at the current price, and a price reduction appears to be justified. In China, value-based prices for nivolumab are $7.90 and $9.70/mg for the country and Beijing City, respectively. This study could and should inform the multilateral drug-price negotiations in China that may be upcoming for nivolumab. Cancer 2017;123:2634-41. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma After Anti-Angiogenic Therapy and Exploratory Predictive Biomarker Analysis.

On November 23, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab (OPDIVO, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company) for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who have received prior anti-angiogenic therapy. The approval was based on efficacy and safety data demonstrated in an open-label, randomized study of 821 patients with advanced RCC who progressed after at least one anti-angiogenic therapy. Patients were randomized to nivolumab or everolimus and followed for disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival. Subsequent therapies, including everolimus for patients who developed progressive disease on the nivolumab arm, were allowed, but no cross-over was permitted. The median overall survival was 25.0 months on the nivolumab arm and 19.6 months on everolimus arm (hazard ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.89). The confirmed response rates were 21.5% versus 3.9%; median durations of response were 23.0 versus 13.7 months, and median times to response were 3.0 versus 3.7 months in the nivolumab and everolimus arms, respectively. A statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival was not observed in this trial. The safety profile of nivolumab in renal cell cancer was similar to that in other disease settings. However, the incidence of immune-mediated nephritis appeared to be higher in patients with RCC. The Oncologist 2017;22:311-317 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The overall benefit/risk profile demonstrated in trial CA209025 supported the approval of nivolumab as an additional treatment option for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma after anti-angiogenic therapy. The use of nivolumab in patients who had received vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy resulted in a 5.4 month improvement in median overall survival compared with the everolimus arm. This difference is statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

Patterns of care among patients receiving sequential targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective chart review in the USA.

OBJECTIVES: To assess real-world treatment patterns of targeted therapies after failure of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: A large, retrospective review of medical charts of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the USA was carried out. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize physicians' and patients' characteristics, treatment sequences, and reasons for treatment choices. P-values were calculated using χ2 -tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables. A descriptive comparison was carried out between current results and those of a previous treatment pattern study conducted in 2012 to identify changes in treatment patterns over time. RESULTS: Sunitinib and everolimus remained the most commonly-used first and second targeted therapies, respectively. Among patients who continued to a third targeted therapy, everolimus and axitinib were the most commonly-used treatments after second targeted therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, respectively. The use of pazopanib as first targeted therapy, and of axitinib and sorafenib as second targeted therapies, increased over time. Efficacy, treatment guidelines and a different mechanism of action were the main reasons given by physicians for choosing among second targeted therapies after failure of a first tyrosine kinase inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study document patterns of care during a period of rapid and ongoing therapeutic advancement in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Sequencing of therapies warrants ongoing analysis in light of new agents entering the advanced renal cell carcinoma treatment landscape.