NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2024.

Bladder cancer, the sixth most common cancer in the United States, is most commonly of the urothelial carcinoma histologic subtype. The clinical spectrum of bladder cancer is divided into 3 categories that differ in prognosis, management, and therapeutic aims: (1) non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC); (2) muscle invasive, nonmetastatic disease; and (3) metastatic bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer, including changes in the fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours: Urinary and Male Genital Tumours and how the NCCN Guidelines aligned with these updates; new and emerging treatment options for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive NMIBC; and updates to systemic therapy recommendations for advanced or metastatic disease.

Comparative Effectiveness of Front-Line Ipilimumab and Nivolumab or Axitinib and Pembrolizumab in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is rapidly evolving with new combination therapies demonstrating improved response rates and survival. There are no head-to-head prospective trials comparing an immunotherapy doublet with an immunotherapy/tyrosine-kinase inhibitor-based combination. We compare real-world outcomes in patients treated with axitinib/pembrolizumab (axi/pembro) or ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo). The primary endpoints were overall-survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a de-identified database to select patients diagnosed with clear cell mRCC and treated with front-line axi/pembro or ipi/nivo from 2018 to 2022. Analyses are adjusted using propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting, balancing age, gender, insurance, race, IMDC risk, and nephrectomy status. We compared survival by treatment groups using weighted and unweighted Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests and weighted Cox proportional hazards regressions. RESULTS: We included a total of 1506 patients with mRCC who received frontline axi/pembro (n = 547) or ipi/nivo (n = 959). Median follow-up time was 20.0 months (range: 0.2-47.6). Baseline demographics were similar between the 2 cohorts. Adjusted median OS for the full population was 28.9 months for axi/pembro and was 24.3 months for ipi/nivo (P = .09). Twenty-four-month survival was 53.8% for axi/pembro treated patients and 50.2% for ipi/nivo treated patients. rwPFS was 10.6 months for axi/pembro treated patients and 6.9 months for ipi/nivo treated patients. Treatment with axi/pembro conferred improved survival in the IMDC favorable risk strata, with no significant difference in survival observed within the full cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective, real-world study of patients treated with front-line combination therapy, patients with IMDC favorable risk disease had better survival when treated with axi/pembro compared to ipi/nivo. However, survival for the entire population and the 24-month median overall survival were not statistically different between treatment groups. Longer follow-up is necessary to discern any emerging significant differences.

Patients' Perceptions Regarding the Relevance of Items Contained in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal method of assessing health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This study explored the perceived relevance of items that make up the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), as judged by patients with mRCC. METHODS: This was a multinational cross-sectional survey. Eligible patients responded to a questionnaire composed of 18 items that assessed the perceived relevance of each item in the FKSI-19 questionnaire. Open-ended questions assessed additional issues deemed relevant by patients. Responses were grouped as relevant (scores 2-5) or nonrelevant (score 1). Descriptive statistics were collated, and open-ended questions were analyzed and categorized into descriptive categories. Spearman correlation statistics were used to test the association between relevance and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients were included (gender: 78.1 M, 21.9F; median age: 64; treatment: 38.4 immunotherapy, 29.8 targeted therapy, 13.9 immuno-TKI combination therapy) in the study. The most relevant questions evaluated fatigue (77.5), lack of energy (72.2), and worry that their condition will get worse (71.5). Most patients rated blood in urine (15.2), fevers (16.6), and lack of appetite (23.2) as least relevant. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions revealed several themes, including emotional and physical symptoms, ability to live independently, effectiveness of treatment, family, spirituality, and financial toxicity. CONCLUSION: There is a need to refine widely used HR-QOL measures that are employed among patients diagnosed with mRCC treated with contemporary therapies. Guidance was provided for the inclusion of more relevant items to patients' cancer journey.

LITESPARK-012: pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib with or without belzutifan or quavonlimab for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Combination treatment with immunotherapy agents and/or vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are a standard of care for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Novel therapeutic combinations that include the hypoxia-inducible factor 2α inhibitor belzutifan and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor quavonlimab are being investigated for their potential to further improve patient outcomes. This protocol describes the rationale and design of the randomized, phase III LITESPARK-012 study, which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib with or without belzutifan or quavonlimab as first-line treatment for advanced ccRCC. Results from this study may support triplet combination therapies as a potential new standard of care for advanced ccRCC. Clinical trial registry: NCT04736706 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Association between baseline body mass index and survival in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: ECOG-ACRIN CHAARTED E3805.

BACKGROUND: E3805 (CHAARTED) is a phase 3 trial demonstrating improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) randomized to treatment with docetaxel (D) and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone. We assessed the association of baseline body mass index (BMI) and metformin exposure with quality of life (QOL) and prostate cancer outcomes including survival in patients enrolled in the CHAARTED study. METHODS: We performed a posthoc exploratory analysis of the CHAARTED trial of men with mHSPC randomized to treatment with ADT with or without D between 2006 and 2012. Cox proportional hazards models and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to evaluate the association between BMI with QOL and prostate cancer outcomes and between metformin exposure and survival. RESULTS: In 788 of 790 enrolled patients with prospectively recorded baseline BMI and metformin exposure status, lower BMI was not associated with survival, but was associated with high volume disease (p < 0.0001) and poorer baseline QOL on functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate (p = 0.008). Only 68 patients had prevalent metformin exposure at baseline in the CHAARTED trial. Four groups were identified: ADT + D + metformin (n = 39); ADT + D (n = 357); ADT + metformin (n = 29); and ADT alone (n = 363). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between groups. In this small exploratory multivariable analysis, metformin exposure was not associated with survival (hazard ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.63, p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: There was no link between baseline BMI and survival, but lower baseline BMI was associated with features of greater cancer burden and poorer QOL.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Results according to VESPER data.

BACKGROUND: The VESPER trial demonstrated improved progression-free (PFS) and (preliminarily) overall survival (OS) with six cycles of neoadjuvant dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVACx6) versus four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GCx4) before radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but with increased toxicity. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of these regimens. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was performed using a decision-analytic Markov model with 5-year, 10-year, and lifetime horizons. Probabilities were derived from reported VESPER data. Utility values were obtained from the literature. Primary outcomes were effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: At 5 years, ddMVACx6 improved QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of $16,100, rendering it cost-effective relative to GCx4 (ICER: $53,284/QALY). Additionally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis found ddMVACx6 to be cost-effective in 79% and 81% of microsimulations at10-year and lifetime horizons, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a minimum difference in 5-year progression of 0.9% and progression mortality of 0.7% between ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was necessary for ddMVACx6 to remain cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant ddMVACx6 was more cost-effective than GCx4 for MIBC. These data, together with the improved PFS and (albeit preliminary) OS noted in VESPER, support use of this regimen in appropriate candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC. LAY SUMMARY: We performed a benefit-to-cost analysis using evidence from a randomized controlled trial that compared two different chemotherapy treatments before bladder removal for bladder cancer that had invaded into the bladder muscle. Despite being more expensive and having a greater likelihood of toxicity, six cycles of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin was more cost-effective (or had higher value) than four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib showed antitumor activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Whether pembrolizumab plus axitinib would result in better outcomes than sunitinib in such patients was unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 861 patients with previously untreated advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily (432 patients) or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for the first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle (429 patients). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end point was the objective response rate. All reported results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, the estimated percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 89.9% in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 78.3% in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 11.1 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 59.3% (95% CI, 54.5 to 63.9) in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 35.7% (95% CI, 31.1 to 40.4) in the sunitinib group (P<0.001). The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was observed across the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups (i.e., favorable, intermediate, and poor risk) and regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression. Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 75.8% of patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and in 70.6% in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival, as well as a higher objective response rate, than treatment with sunitinib. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-426 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02853331.).

Safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and malignant ureteric obstruction.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients with carcinoma invading bladder muscle (MIBC) and ureteric obstruction can safely receive cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (C-NAC), and to determine whether such patients require relief of obstruction with a ureteric stent or percutaneous nephrostomy prior to beginning C-NAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a single-institution retrospective analysis of MIBC patients receiving C-NAC and falling into three groups: no ureteric obstruction (NO); relieved ureteric obstruction (RO); and unrelieved ureteric obstruction (URO). To address whether patients with obstruction can safely receive C-NAC, we compared patients with NO to those with RO, with the primary outcome of premature chemotherapy discontinuation. To investigate whether patients with obstruction should have the obstruction relieved prior to NAC, we compared RO to URO patients using a primary composite outcome of grade ≥ 3 adverse events, premature chemotherapy discontinuation, dose reduction, or dose interruption. The primary outcomes were compared using multivariable logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed for the RO vs URO comparison, in which patients with only mild degrees of obstruction were excluded from the URO group. RESULTS: A total of 193 patients with NO, 49 with RO, and 35 with URO were analysed. There were no statistically significant differences between those with NO and those with RO in chemotherapy discontinuation (15% vs 22%; P = 0.3) or any secondary outcome. There was no statistically significant difference between those with RO and URO in the primary composite outcome (51% vs 53%; P = 1) or any secondary outcome. CONCLUSION: Patients with ureteric obstruction can safely receive C-NAC. Relief of obstruction was not associated with increased safety of C-NAC delivery.

Kidney Cancer, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as "Preferred," "Other Recommended Regimens," or "Useful in Certain Circumstances." This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 2.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody-drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. INTERPRETATION: With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

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.

Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Systemic Chemotherapy Followed by Extirpative Surgery in Patients with High Grade Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Data supporting neoadjuvant chemotherapy of high grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma are scant. In this multi-institution, prospective, phase II trial we investigated pathological complete responses after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of high grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with high grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma in whom nephroureterectomy was planned were assigned to 4 neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles of accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin in those with baseline creatinine clearance greater than 50 ml per minute or gemcitabine and carboplatin in those with creatinine clearance 30 to 50 ml per minute or less. The study primary end point was a pathological complete response (ypT0N0). The accrual goal was 30 patients per arm. An 18% pathological complete response was considered worth further study while a 4% pathological complete response would not have justified pursuing this regimen. With 28 eligible patients per arm success was defined as 3 or more pathological complete responses (10.7%) in a given arm. Secondary end points included safety, renal function and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients enrolled in the accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin arm from 2015 to 2017. Six patients enrolled in the gemcitabine and carboplatin arm, which closed due to poor accrual. Of the 29 patients eligible for accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin, including 23 men and 6 women with a median age of 65 years (range 40 to 84), 80% completed all planned treatments, 3 (10.3%) achieved ypT0N0 and 1 achieved ypT0Nx for a pathological complete response in 13.8% (90% CI 4.9-28.8). In 1 patient receiving accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin nephroureterectomy was deferred due to grade 4 sepsis. The grade 3-4 toxicity rate was 23% in the accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin arm with no grade 5 event. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma and creatinine clearance greater than 50 ml per minute was safe and demonstrated predefined activity with a 14% pathological complete response rate. Final pathological stage ypT1 or less in more than 60% of patients is encouraging. Together the results of this prospective trial support the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in eligible patients with high grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

Sporadic Angiomyolipomas Growth Kinetics While on Everolimus: Results of a Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Everolimus decreases tumor volume of renal angiomyolipomas in patients with tuberous sclerosis. No prospective data are available regarding the effect of everolimus on the growth kinetics in patients with sporadic angiomyolipomas. We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of everolimus in the volumetric reduction of sporadic angiomyolipomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multi-institutional, prospective, phase II trial, enrolled patients with 3 cm or larger sporadic angiomyolipomas who were candidates for surgical resection or percutaneous angioembolization. Patients received 10 mg everolimus daily for 4 planned 28-day cycles. Response was defined as a 25% or greater volumetric reduction of patient angiomyolipoma. Baseline, 4, 6 and 12-month volumetric analyses were performed using magnetic resonance imaging. Everolimus was discontinued in those with less than 25% volumetric reduction after 4 cycles. Those with 25% or greater volumetric reduction received 2 additional cycles. The primary outcomes were the efficacy of everolimus in the volumetric reduction of angiomyolipomas by 25% or more, and the safety and tolerability of everolimus. RESULTS: Overall 20 patients were enrolled at 5 centers. Of these patients 11 (55%) completed 4 cycles and 7 (35%) completed 6 cycles. Efficacy was demonstrated, with 10 of 18 (55.6%) patients exhibiting a 25% or greater reduction in tumor volume at 4 months (median 58.5%) and 10 of 14 (71.4%) patients exhibiting a 25% or greater reduction in tumor volume at 6 months (median 58.2%). Four (20%) patients were withdrawn due to protocol defined toxicities and 8 (40%) self-withdrew from the study due to side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus was effective in causing volumetric reduction of angiomyolipomas by 25% or greater in most patients but was associated with a high rate of treatment discontinuation.

Integration of Immunotherapy Into the Treatment of Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

Five new PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC): pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and avelumab. Although cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains the recommended frontline option for cisplatin-eligible patients with metastatic UC, immunotherapy is now an available option in the second-line setting as well as the frontline setting for selected cisplatin-ineligible patients who are either unable to tolerate chemotherapy or PD-L1-positive. This review describes the updated clinical efficacy of these checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of advanced UC and suggests how they can be sequenced in the context of available chemotherapeutic options.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the guidelines, including changes to certain systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC. They also discuss the addition of a new section to the guidelines that identifies and describes the most common hereditary RCC syndromes and provides recommendations for genetic testing, surveillance, and/or treatment options for patients who are suspected or confirmed to have one of these syndromes.

Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on the clinical presentation and workup of suspected bladder cancer, treatment of non-muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, and treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer because important updates have recently been made to these sections. Some important updates include recommendations for optimal treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage and details about biomarker testing for advanced or metastatic disease. The systemic therapy recommendations for second-line or subsequent therapies have also been revised. Treatment and management of muscle-invasive, nonmetastatic disease is covered in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include treatment of nonurothelial histologies and recommendations for nonbladder urinary tract cancers such as upper tract urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, and primary carcinoma of the urethra.

Cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma on the basis of studies done in clear-cell histology. The activity of cabozantinib in patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma is poorly characterised. We sought to analyse the antitumour activity and toxicity of cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We did a multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study of patients with metastatic non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with oral cabozantinib during any treatment line at 22 centres: 21 in the USA and one in Belgium. Eligibility required patients with histologically confirmed non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma who received cabozantinib for metastatic disease during any treatment line roughly between 2015 and 2018. Mixed tumours with a clear-cell histology component were excluded. No other restrictive inclusion criteria were applied. Data were obtained from retrospective chart review by investigators at each institution. Demographic, surgical, pathological, and systemic therapy data were captured with uniform database templates to ensure consistent data collection. The main objectives were to estimate the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, time to treatment failure, and overall survival after treatment. FINDINGS: Of 112 identified patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated at the participating centres, 66 (59%) had papillary histology, 17 (15%) had Xp11.2 translocation histology, 15 (13%) had unclassified histology, ten (9%) had chromophobe histology, and four (4%) had collecting duct histology. The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response across all histologies was 30 (27%, 95% CI 19-36) of 112 patients. At a median follow-up of 11 months (IQR 6-18), median time to treatment failure was 6·7 months (95% CI 5·5-8·6), median progression-free survival was 7·0 months (5·7-9·0), and median overall survival was 12·0 months (9·2-17·0). The most common adverse events of any grade were fatigue (58 [52%]), and diarrhoea (38 [34%]). The most common grade 3 events were skin toxicity (rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia; five [4%]) and hypertension (four [4%]). No treatment-related deaths were observed. Across 54 patients with available next-generation sequencing data, the most frequently altered somatic genes were CDKN2A (12 [22%]) and MET (11 [20%]) with responses seen irrespective of mutational status. INTERPRETATION: While we await results from prospective studies, this real-world study provides evidence supporting the antitumour activity and safety of cabozantinib across non-clear-cell renal cell carcinomas. Continued support of international collaborations and prospective ongoing studies targeting non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes and specific molecular alterations are warranted to improve outcomes across these rare diseases with few evidence-based treatment options. FUNDING: None.