Characteristics and outcomes of immunotherapy-related liver injury in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma versus other advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is commonly observed in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to compare the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of irLI between patients receiving ICIs for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vs. other solid tumours. METHODS: Two separate cohorts were included: 375 patients with advanced/unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh A class treated with first-line atezolizumab+bevacizumab from the AB-real study, and a non-HCC cohort including 459 patients treated with first-line ICI therapy from the INVIDIa-2 multicentre study. IrLI was defined as a treatment-related increase of aminotransferase levels after exclusion of alternative aetiologies of liver injury. The incidence of irLI was adjusted for the duration of treatment exposure. RESULTS: In patients with HCC, the incidence of any grade irLI was 11.4% over a median treatment exposure of 4.4 months (95% CI 3.7-5.2) vs. 2.6% in the INVIDIa-2 cohort over a median treatment exposure of 12.4 months (95% CI 11.1-14.0). Exposure-adjusted-incidence of any grade irLI was 22.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with HCC and 2.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with other solid tumours (p <0.001), with median time-to-irLI of 1.4 and 4.7 months, respectively. Among patients who developed irLI, systemic corticosteroids were administered in 16.3% of patients with HCC and 75.0% of those without HCC (p <0.001), and irLI resolution was observed in 72.1% and 58.3%, respectively (p = 0.362). In patients with HCC, rates of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation due to irLI were 7%. Grade 1-2 irLI was associated with improved overall survival only in patients with HCC (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher incidence and earlier onset, irLI in patients with HCC is characterised by higher rates of remission and lower requirement for corticosteroid therapy (vs. irLI in other solid tumours), low risk of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation, not negatively affecting oncological outcomes. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is common in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but whether irLI is more frequent or it is associated with a worse clinical course in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared to other tumours, is not known. Herein, we compared characteristics and outcomes of irLI in two prospective cohorts including patients treated with ICIs for HCC or for other oncological indications. irLI is significantly more common and it occurs earlier in patients with HCC, also after adjustment for duration of treatment exposure. However, outcomes of patients with HCC who developed irLI are not negatively affected in terms of requirement for corticosteroid therapy, hepatic decompensation, treatment discontinuation and overall survival.

Long-Term Survival in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Tivozanib: Analysis of the Phase III TIVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib is an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Long-term exploratory analyses from the TIVO-3 trial in relapsed/refractory (R/R) RCC including patients (26%) with prior immuno-oncology (IO) therapy are reported. METHODS: Patients with R/R advanced RCC that progressed with 2 or 3 prior systemic therapies (≥1 VEGFR TKI) were randomized to tivozanib 1.5 mg QD or sorafenib 400 mg BID, stratified by IMDC risk and previous therapy. Safety, investigator-assessed long-term progression-free survival (LT-PFS), and serial overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean time on treatment was 11.0 months with tivozanib (n = 175) and 6.3 months with sorafenib (n = 175). Fewer grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred with tivozanib (46%) than sorafenib (55%). Dose modification rates were lower with tivozanib than sorafenib across age/prior IO subgroups; prior IO therapy did not impact dose reductions or discontinuations in either arm. Landmark LT-PFS rates were higher with tivozanib (3 years: 12.3% vs 2.4%; 4 years: 7.6% vs 0%). After 22.8 months mean follow-up, the OS HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.14); when conditioned on 12-month landmark PFS, tivozanib showed significant OS improvement over sorafenib (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91; 2-sided P = .0221). CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib demonstrated a consistent safety profile and long-term survival benefit in patients with R/R advanced RCC who were alive and progression free at 12 months. These post hoc exploratory analyses of LT-PFS and conditional OS support a clinically meaningful improvement with tivozanib versus sorafenib in this advanced RCC population.

Gender Difference in sidE eFfects of ImmuNotherapy: a possible clue to optimize cancEr tReatment (G-DEFINER): study protocol of an observational prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have significantly improved outcomes in various cancers. ICI treatment is associated with the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) which can affect any organ. Data on irAEs occurrence in relation to sex- differentiation and their association with gender-specific factors are limited. AIMS: The primary objective of the G-DEFINER study is to compare the irAEs incidence in female and male patients who undergo ICI treatment. Secondary objectives are: to compare the irAEs incidence in pre- and postmenopausal female patients; to compare the irAEs incidence in female and male patients according to different clinical and gender-related factors (lifestyle, psychosocial, and behavioral factors). Exploratory objectives of the study are to compare and contrast hormonal, gene-expression, SNPs, cytokines, and gut microbiota profiles in relation to irAEs incidence in female and male patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The patients are recruited from Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Italy, St Vincent's University Hospital, Ireland, Oslo University Hospital, Norway, and Karolinska Insitutet/Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. The inclusion of patients was delayed due to the Covid pandemic, leading to a total of 250 patients recruited versus a planned number of 400 patients. Clinical and translational data will be analyzed. INTERPRETATION: The expected outcomes are to improve the management of cancer patients treated with ICIs, leading to more personalized clinical approaches that consider potential toxicity profiles. The real world nature of the trial makes it highly applicable for timely irAEs diagnosis.

CaboCombo: a prospective, phase IV study of first-line cabozantinib + nivolumab for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Cabozantinib plus nivolumab was approved as a first-line (1L) treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) following the CheckMate 9ER trial. CaboCombo (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05361434) is a non-interventional study designed to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cabozantinib plus nivolumab in a real-world setting. Overall, 311 patients with clear-cell aRCC receiving 1L cabozantinib plus nivolumab will be recruited from at least 70 centers in seven countries worldwide. The primary end point is overall survival at 18 months. Secondary end points include progression-free survival, objective response rate, safety, patterns of treatment, subsequent anticancer therapies and quality of life. CaboCombo will provide real-world evidence on the characteristics, treatment sequences, and outcomes of patients with aRCC receiving 1L cabozantinib plus nivolumab.

Renal cell carcinomas (RCC) are cancers that grow in the kidneys. Clear-cell RCC is the most common type reported in almost three quarters of patients. RCC tumors become advanced if they grow and spread to other parts of the body. In a clinical trial called CheckMate 9ER, a combination of two drugs called cabozantinib and nivolumab improved survival compared with a drug called sunitinib in patients with advanced clear-cell RCC who had not received any previous treatments. In CheckMate 9ER, cabozantinib plus nivolumab also reduced the size and slowed the spread of tumors compared with sunitinib. However, clinical trials only allow certain patients to participate under strict treatment conditions and so do not provide information on how a treatment will work in all patients. Researchers therefore carry out additional studies to gather extra information from real-world clinical practice. CaboCombo is a study that will look at how well cabozantinib plus nivolumab stops tumors from growing and spreading, the side effects of the drugs, and also how the drugs are used by doctors. It is an observational study, which means that researchers will observe all patients and doctors using the treatment but they will not intervene. The aim of the study is to gather information that will help doctors make treatment decisions for their patients. This article describes how the CaboCombo study will be carried out and the information it will give the researchers. The results will help physicians make decisions on the best treatment option for patients. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05361434 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Tivozanib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Previously Treated With Axitinib: Subgroup Analysis from TIVO-3.

BACKGROUND: In phase III TIVO-3 trial, tivozanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the effectiveness of this drug after exposure to other selective VEGFR agents has not yet been defined. Herein, we characterize the clinical efficacy of tivozanib in patients with mRCC previously treated with axitinib. METHODS: We identified patients from the intention to treat (ITT) population, in the TIVO-3 trial, who received treatment with axitinib before enrolment in the study and evaluated PFS, response rate (RR), and safety. RESULTS: Out of 350 patients, 172 (83:89, tivozanib:sorafenib) had received prior treatment with axitinib in TIVO-3. In this subgroup, PFS was 5.5 months with tivozanib and 3.7 months with sorafenib (HR 0.68). RR was 13% and 8% favoring tivozanib. CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib is active in the treatment of patients with mRCC who have progressed on prior therapies, including axitinib.

The impact of proton-pump inhibitors administered with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the backbone of the systemic treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). TKIs such as pazopanib and cabozantinib can interact with other drugs concomitantly administered, particularly with proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), possibly impacting the effectiveness of the anticancer treatment and patients outcome. Few data are available about this interaction. We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational data collection of patients with mRCC treated with pazopanib or cabozantinib between January 2012 and December 2020 in nine Italian centers. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. The aim was to describe the impact of baseline concomitant PPIs on the outcome of patients to pazopanib and cabozantinib in terms of response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), toxicity, and treatment compliance. The use of PPI in our study population (301 patients) significantly influenced the effectiveness of TKIs with worse PFS (16.3 vs. 9.9 months; P < 0.001) and OS (30.6 vs. 18.4 months; P = 0.013) in patients taking PPI at TKI initiation. This detrimental effect was maintained both in the pazopanib and cabozantinib groups. The use of PPI influenced the toxicity and TKI treatment compliance with a reduction of dose or schedule modifications, and treatment interruptions in the population taking PPIs. Our study demonstrates that the use of PPIs can significantly influence the outcome and compliance of patients with mRCC to TKI treatment, suggesting the importance of a more careful selection of patients who need a gastroprotective therapy, avoiding indiscriminate use of PPIs.

Current Status of Predictive Biomarker Development in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we analyze the current state of research in development of new biomarkers that may be useful in managing metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) setting. RECENT FINDINGS: Combining tumor-based biomarkers (gene expression profile) and blood-based biomarkers (ctDNA, cytokines) would be helpful in acquiring information regarding RCC and might be significant in the decision-making process. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the sixth most frequently diagnosed neoplasm in men and tithe in women, making it responsible for 5% and 3% of all diagnosed cancers respectively. Metastatic stage represents a non-negligible percentage at diagnosis and is characterized by poor prognosis. Despite clinical features and prognostic score could guide clinicians in therapeutic approach of this disease, biomarkers predictive of response to treatment remain an unmet need.

Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib for Metastatic Papillary and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: NEMESIA (Non Clear MEtaStatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Pembrolizumab Axitinib) Study, a Subgroup Analysis of I-RARE Observational Study (Meet-URO 23a).

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) represents a heterogeneous histological group which is 20-25% of those with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with nccRCC have limited therapeutic options due to their exclusion from phase III randomized trials. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness and tolerability of pembrolizumabaxitinib combination in chromophobe and papillary metastatic RCC (mRCC) patients enrolled in the I-RARE (Italian Registry on rAre genitor-uRinary nEoplasms) observational ongoing study (Meet-URO 23). Baseline characteristics, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicities were retrospectively and prospectively collected from nccRCC patients treated in 14 Italian referral centers adhering to the Meet-Uro group, from December 2020 to April 2022. Only patients with chromophobe and papillary histology were considered eligible for the present pre-specified analysis. There were 32 eligible patients who received pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatment, of whom 13 (40%) had chromophobe histology and 19 (60%) were classified as papillary RCC. The DCR was 78.1% whereas ORR was 43.7% (11 patients achieved stable disease and 14 patients obtained partial response: 9/19 papillary, 5/13 chromophobe). Six patients (18.7%) were primary refractory. Median PFS was 10.8 months (95%CI 1.7-11.5). Eleven patients (34.3%) interrupted the full treatment due to immune-related adverse events (irAEs): G3 hepatitis (n = 5), G3 hypophisitis (n = 1), G3 diarrhea (n = 1), G3 pancreatitis (n = 1), G3 asthenia (n = 1). Twelve patients (37.5%) temporarily interrupted axitinib only due to persistent G2 hand-foot syndrome or G2 hypertension. Pembrolizumab-axitinib combination could be an active and feasible first-line treatment option for patients with papillary or chromophobe mRCC.

The amount of DNA combined with TP53 mutations in liquid biopsy is associated with clinical outcome of renal cancer patients treated with immunotherapy and VEGFR-TKIs.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing number of treatment options, reliable prognostic/predictive biomarkers are still missing for patients affected by metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). METHODS: Patients with mccRCC undergoing standard first line treatment were enrolled. Blood (12 ml) was drawn at treatment baseline and circulating free DNA (cfDNA) was extracted from plasma. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on cfDNA using the Oncomine Pan-Cancer Cell-Free Assay and clinical outcomes were correlated with liquid biopsy findings. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients were enrolled, 12 received immunotherapy and 36 received a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). A cfDNA cut-off of 0.883 ng/µl stratified patients based on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively). cfDNA amount was also correlated with best response (p = 0.006). Additional cfDNA cut-points divided patients into short, intermediate and long responders, with PFS of 4.87 vs 9.13 vs 23.1 months, respectively (p < 0.001). PFS resulted to be significantly shorter in carriers of mutant TP53 compared to not carriers (p = 0.04). Patients with high cfDNA levels and mutant TP53 have the worst PFS, while patients with low cfDNA amounts and no mutations in TP53 displayed the longest PFS (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that cfDNA and TP53 are potential predictive biomarkers of response in mccRCC to be further explored in larger and/or prospective studies.

The curious phenomenon of dual-positive circulating cells: Longtime overlooked tumor cells.

The presence in the blood of patients with solid tumors of circulating cells expressing both epithelial and leukocyte markers (dual-positive cells, DPcells), has often been reported, though it has never been investigated in detail. A recent study suggested that DPcells are hybrid cells derived from the fusion of tumor cells with macrophages. Such fusion hybrids acquire macrophage-associated features endowing them with accelerated growth, increased motility, enhanced invasion activity and thus, a higher efficiency in metastasis formation. However, no direct evidence proving the tumor origin of circulating DPcells was provided in patients. Here we contribute a review of literature data on DPcells and on the hybrid theory with the aim of putting the current evidence both in a biological and clinical perspective and to generate new hypotheses on the mechanisms underlying tumor progression. To add further biological and clinical context to our literature review, we also report some preliminary data from our laboratory on the identification of DPcells in several solid tumors and confirmation of their malignant genotype, thus classifying them as DP-CTCs.

Safety and Efficacy of Tivozanib in First-Line mRCC: A Multicenter Compassionate-Use Study (Meet-Uro 16).

INTRODUCTION: Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR-1), VEGFR-2, and VEGFR-3, recently approved in Europe for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of safety and activity of tivozanib administered at 1.34 mg daily (3 weeks on, 1 week off) within a compassionate-use program to patients with mRCC with no prior systemic treatment in Italy. RESULTS: From August 2018 to April 2019, 64 patients have started tivozanib in 9 oncology units. The median age was 67.5 years (range 40-85), 62.5% males. According to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria, 27.1% of patients were good prognosis, 57.6% intermediate, and 15.3% poor. Primary tumor had been removed in 71.9% of patients. Histology was clear cell 89%, papillary 4.7%, and unclassified 6.3%. The response rate was 34.4%, stable disease 40.6%, and progression 15.6%. Grade 3-4 toxicities were 7.8% hypertension, 4.7% anemia, 3.1% mucositis, 3.1% asthenia, 1.6% diarrhea, 1.6% anorexia, 1.6% worsening of renal function, and 3.1% cardiac events. Dose reduction to 0.89 mg was applied to 17.2% of patients, and the discontinuation rate due to toxicity was 5.8%. Median progression-free survival was 12.4 months, with 68.7% of patients alive at 12 months. The developing of hypertension predicted increased progression-free survival at multivariate analysis (HR, 0.128; 95% CI, 0.03-0.59; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib showed good activity and favorable safety profile in a real-world cohort of unselected patients with mRCC. Predictive biomarkers of response to antiangiogenic therapy are urgently needed in order to identify RCC patients who could still receive a monotherapy with VEGFR inhibitors in the first line.

Outcomes of systemic targeted therapy in recurrent renal cell carcinoma treated with adjuvant sunitinib.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of rechallenge with sunitinib and other targeted therapies (TTs) in patitents with relapsed recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the advanced setting. METHODS: In this multi-institutional retrospective study, patients with relapsed RCC were rechallenged with sunitinib or other systemic TTs as a first-line therapeutic approach after failed adjuvant sunitinib treatment. Patient characteristics, treatments and clinical outcomes were recorded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 34 patients with relapses were recorded, and 25 of these (73.5%) were men. Twenty-five patients were treated with systemic TT: 65% of patients received TT against the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (including sunitinib), 21.7% received mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and 13% received immunotherapy. The median (interquartile range) time to relapse was 20.3 (5.2-20.4) months from diagnosis, and 7.5 months (1.0-8.5) from the end of adjuvant suntinib treatment. At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, 24 of the 25 patients had progressed on first-line systemic therapy. The median PFS was 12.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.78-18.2). There were no statistical differences in PFS between different treatments or sunitinib rechallenge. PFS was not statistically different in patients relapsing on or after adjuvant suntinib treatment (≤ 6 or >6 months after adjuvant suntinib ending). The ORR was 20.5%. The median OS was 29.1 months (95% CI 16.4-41.8). CONCLUSIONS: Rechallenge with sunitinib or other systemic therapies is still a feasible therapeutic option that provides patients with advanced or metastastic RCC with additional clinical benefits with regard to PFS and OS after failed response to adjuvant sunitinib.

Combination Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma: the Best Choice for Every Patient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Therapeutic alternatives to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are increasing, and combination therapies, including antiangiogenic agents and tyrosine kinase/mTOR/immune checkpoint inhibitors, are identified as the gold standard driven by the results of recent clinical studies. Nevertheless, the real-world RCC population is very heterogeneous, with categories of patients not represented in the enrolled trial population who may not benefit more from these treatments. The purpose of this expert review is to assess the rationale on which tyrosine kinase alone may still be a viable first-line treatment option for some subgroups of patients with mRCC. RECENT FINDINGS: The first-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy can still be considered an effective tool for addressing selected mRCCs, as highlighted by the successful outcome in a range of subjects such as favorable-risk patients, the ones suffering from autoimmune diseases, those with pancreatic or lung metastases, or previously undergoing organ transplantation and elderly subjects. Some selected categories of patients may still benefit from monotherapy with TKI, and smart sequential therapies can also be considered instead of a combination strategy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors can also act as immune modulator agents, boosting the immune response to facilitate and potentiate the therapeutic effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy.

Tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TIVO-3): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by inhibitors of VEGF receptor. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with a VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor might be effective in patients who had previous checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Therefore, TIVO-3 was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of tivozanib (a potent and selective VEGFR inhibitor) with those of sorafenib as third-line or fourth-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled trial done at 120 academic hospitals in 12 countries, we enrolled eligible patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic renal cell carcinoma and at least two previous systemic treatments (including at least one previous treatment with a VEGFR inhibitor), measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were excluded if they had received previous treatment with tivozanib or sorafenib. Patients were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category and type of previous therapy and randomised (1:1) with a complete permuted block design (block size of four) to either tivozanib 1·5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02627963. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 2016, and Aug 14, 2017, 350 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivozanib (175 patients) or sorafenib (175 patients). Median follow-up was 19·0 months (IQR 15·0-23·4). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with tivozanib (5·6 months, 95% CI 5·29-7·33) than with sorafenib (3·9 months, 3·71-5·55; hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·56-0·94; p=0·016). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (35 [20%] of 173 patients treated with tivozanib and 23 [14%] of 170 patients treated with sorafenib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (11%) patients with tivozanib and in 17 (10%) patients with sorafenib. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that tivozanib as third-line or fourth-line therapy improved progression-free survival and was better tolerated compared with sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: AVEO Oncology.

Current Understanding of Urachal Adenocarcinoma and Management Strategy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to sum up the state of the art of urachal carcinoma (UC) in order to easily guide clinicians. RECENT FINDINGS: UC is a rare and aggressive disease with consequent few data about diagnosis and treatment. Dates are mainly based on retrospective trial and case reports with limited prospective trial. Clinical presentation is not specific, often with urinary symptoms. Diagnosis is mainly based on CT scan and MRI, useful to evaluate local invasion and nodal status and to detect the presence of distant metastases. Therefore, biopsy is needed to obtain histological confirmation. Surgery is the gold standard for localized disease, while different chemotherapy schemes have been used in metastatic setting. Novel findings based on mutational analysis of the tumor include the use of biological treatment, such as cetuximab, and immunotherapy, such as atezolizumab, with satisfactory responses, suggesting that personalized treatment could be the most suitable option for UC.

Analysis of Single Circulating Tumor Cells in Renal Cell Carcinoma Reveals Phenotypic Heterogeneity and Genomic Alterations Related to Progression.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are promising biomarkers for prognosis, therapeutic response prediction, and treatment monitoring in cancer patients. Despite its epithelial origin, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) shows low expression of epithelial markers hindering CTC-enrichment approaches exploiting epithelial cell surface proteins. In 21 blood samples serially collected from 10 patients with metastatic RCC entering the TARIBO trial, we overcame this limitation using the marker-independent Parsortix™ approach for CTC-enrichment coupled with positive and negative selection with the DEPArray™ with single cell recovery and analysis for copy number alterations (CNA) by next generation sequencing NGS. Two CTC subpopulations were identified: epithelial CTC (eCTC) and non-conventional CTC (ncCTC) lacking epithelial and leukocyte markers. With a threshold ≥1CTC/10 mL of blood, the positivity rates were 28% for eCTC, 62% for ncCTCs, and 71% considering both CTC types. In two patients with detectable eCTCs at baseline, progression free survival was less than 5 months. In an index case, hierarchical structure by translational oncology (TRONCO) identified three clones among 14 CTCs collected at progression and at baseline, each containing cells with a 9p21.3loss, a well-known metastasis driving subclonal alteration. CTCs detection in RCC can be increased by marker-independent approaches, and CTC molecular characterization can allow detection of subclonal events possibly related to tumor progression.

Role and relevance of quality indicators in the selection of first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a position paper of the MeetURO Group.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors still play a very important role in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma despite a continuously changing scenario, in which immunotherapy and several combination-based approaches are also available. In this light, patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life are important factors in the selection of the best first-line treatment. This Review focuses on the existing evidence on patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life with several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (pazopanib, sunitinib, cabozantinib and tivozanib) used as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

The Evaluation of Response to Immunotherapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Open Challenges in the Clinical Practice.

Immunotherapy has changed the therapeutic scenario of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), however the evaluation of disease response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors is still an open challenge. Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria are the cornerstone of response assessment to anti-neoplastic treatments, but the use of anti-programmed death receptor 1 (PD1) and other immunotherapeutic agents has shown atypical patterns of response such as pseudoprogression. Therefore, immune-modified criteria have been developed in order to more accurately categorize the disease response, even though their use in the everyday clinical practice is still limited. In this review we summarize the available evidence on this topic, with particular focus on the application of immune-modified criteria in the setting of mRCC.

Enzalutamide after chemotherapy in advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer: the Italian Named Patient Program.

AIM: To collect efficacy and safety data of enzalutamide after docetaxel, we retrospectively evaluated the Italian Named Patient Program results. PATIENTS & METHODS: Two hundred and nine metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients were enrolled. Median age was 73 years. Total 42.1% patients had pain, 14.4% had a performance status of two and 59.8% had a Gleason score ≥8. Total 31.1% had previously received ≥2 chemotherapies, 15.3 and 12% had been previously treated with abiraterone and cabazitaxel, respectively and 14.8% had received both. RESULTS:  Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.8 and 13.1 months, respectively. A prostate-specific antigen reduction ≥50% was observed in 49.1%. Total 32.7% abiraterone-pretreated patients achieved a biochemical response compared with 56% of abiraterone-naive patients. CONCLUSION:  Enzalutamide was safe and well tolerated. Its antitumor activity in abiraterone-pretreated patients was limited.

Outcome of Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma and Multiple Glandular Metastases Treated with Targeted Agents.

PURPOSE: Pancreatic metastases (PM) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have been associated with long-term survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of RCC patients with multiple glandular metastases (MGM) treated with targeted therapies (TTs). METHODS: Sixty-four MGM patients treated between 1993 and 2014 were retrospectively identified from a database of 274 RCC patients with PM from 11 European centers. The survival of MGM patients was compared with that of both patients with PM only and a cohort of 325 RCC patients with non-GM (control group) treated with TTs. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and was statistically compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients (88%) had at least 2 MGM, 7 patients (11%) had 3 MGM and 1 patient had 4 MGM, while non-GM were present in the remaining patients. The median overall survival (OS) was 54.2 months for MGM and 73.4 months for patients with PM only. The median OS in the control group was 22.7 months and statistically inferior to both MGM (p < 0.001) and PM patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MGM from RCC are associated with a remarkable survival. Despite some limitations, these findings suggest that GM might be considered a predictor of a favorable prognosis.