Association of clinical factors and recent anticancer therapy with COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer: a report from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anticancer therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between 17 March and 18 November 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anticancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients). RESULTS: A total of 4966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count; high absolute neutrophil count; low platelet count; abnormal creatinine; troponin; lactate dehydrogenase; and C-reactive protein were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anticancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anticancer therapies. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT04354701.

Updated efficacy results from the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial: first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated efficacy data from the second interim analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with aRCC were randomized (1 : 1) to receive avelumab (10 mg/kg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were PFS and overall survival (OS) among patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) tumors. Key secondary end points were OS and PFS in the overall population. RESULTS: Of 886 patients, 442 were randomized to the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 444 to the sunitinib arm; 270 and 290 had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months (data cut-off 28 January 2019), PFS was significantly longer in the avelumab plus axitinib arm than in the sunitinib arm {PD-L1+ population: hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.490-0.777]}; one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.8 (95% CI 10.1-20.7) versus 7.0 months (95% CI 5.7-9.6); overall population: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.574-0.825); one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.3 (95% CI 11.1-15.3) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 6.7-9.8)]. OS data were immature [PD-L1+ population: HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.596-1.151); one-sided P = 0.1301; overall population: HR 0.796 (95% CI 0.616-1.027); one-sided P = 0.0392]. CONCLUSION: Among patients with previously untreated aRCC, treatment with avelumab plus axitinib continued to result in a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus sunitinib; OS data were still immature. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02684006.

Sunitinib-induced hypertension in CYP3A4 rs4646437 A-allele carriers with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs4646437G>A in CYP3A4 was suggested to be related to sunitinib toxicity. Our objective was to perform an in-depth investigation of the association between this SNP and sunitinib toxicity and efficacy using a large cohort of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. We collected DNA and clinical information of mRCC patients treated with sunitinib. SNP rs4646437 in CYP3A4 was tested for associations with toxicity using logistic regression. Cox regression modeling was used for association analysis of rs4646437 with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In a total of 287 patients, the A-allele of CYP3A4 rs4646437 was associated with an increased risk for hypertension (odds ratio=2.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-5.2, P=0.021) and showed no significant association with PFS or OS. In conclusion, hypertension is more likely to occur in A-allele carriers of the CYP3A4 rs4646437 variant in our cohort of mRCC patients treated with sunitinib.

Alternate sunitinib schedules in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Sunitinib malate is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor exhibiting antiangiogenic activity. Sunitinib demonstrated improved outcomes in comparison to interferon-α in a large phase III study of treatment naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Maintaining patients on sunitinib treatment is essential for a sustained disease control as higher exposure to sunitinib has been associated with an improved overall response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Various studies have compared the outcomes of patients undergoing sunitinib therapy based on modifications from their standard dose and schedule. Several studies have shown that switching to an alternate schedule with more frequent dose interruptions without affecting dose density over a 6-week cycle is associated with improved outcomes and increased tolerability.

Axitinib dose titration: analyses of exposure, blood pressure and clinical response from a randomized phase II study in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, double-blind phase II trial in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), axitinib versus placebo titration yielded a significantly higher objective response rate. We evaluated pharmacokinetic and blood pressure (BP) data from this study to elucidate relationships among axitinib exposure, BP change, and efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received axitinib 5 mg twice daily during a lead-in period. Patients who met dose-titration criteria were randomized 1:1 to stepwise dose increases with axitinib or placebo. Patients ineligible for randomization continued without dose increases. Serial 6-h and sparse pharmacokinetic sampling were carried out; BP was measured at clinic visits and at home in all patients, and by 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h throughout the course of treatment (AUCstudy) was higher in patients with complete or partial responses than those with stable or progressive disease in the axitinib-titration arm, but comparable between these groups in the placebo-titration and nonrandomized arms. In the overall population, AUCstudy and efficacy outcomes were not strongly correlated. Mean BP across the population was similar when measured in clinic, at home, or by 24-h ABPM. Weak correlations were observed between axitinib steady-state exposure and diastolic BP. When grouped by change in diastolic BP from baseline, patients in the ≥10 and ≥15 mmHg groups had longer progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal axitinib exposure may differ among patients with mRCC. Pharmacokinetic or BP measurements cannot be used exclusively to guide axitinib dosing. Individualization of treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, including axitinib, is thus more complex than anticipated and cannot be limited to a single clinical factor.

Axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: subanalyses by prior therapy from a randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: In the AXIS trial, axitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) previously treated with sunitinib or cytokines. METHODS: In post hoc analyses, patients were grouped by objective response to prior therapy (yes vs no), prior therapy duration (< vs ⩾median), and tumour burden (baseline sum of the longest diameter < vs ⩾median). PFS and overall survival (OS), and safety by type and duration of prior therapy were evaluated. RESULTS: Response to prior therapy did not influence outcome with second-line axitinib or sorafenib. PFS was significantly longer in axitinib-treated patients who received longer prior cytokine treatment and sorafenib-treated patients with smaller tumour burden following sunitinib. Overall survival with the second-line therapy was longer in patients who received longer duration of prior therapy, although not significant in the sunitinib-to-axitinib sequence subgroup; OS was also longer in patients with smaller tumour burden, but not significant in the cytokine-to-axitinib sequence subgroup. Safety profiles differed modestly by type and duration of prior therapy. CONCLUSIONS: AXIS data suggest that longer duration of the first-line therapy generally yields better outcome with the second-line therapy and that lack of response to first-line therapy does not preclude positive clinical outcomes with a second-line vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agent in patients with advanced RCC.

Efficacy and safety of sunitinib in elderly patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively analyzed sunitinib outcome as a function of age in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. METHODS: Data were pooled from 1059 patients in six trials. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared by log-rank test between patients aged <70 (n=857; 81%) and ≥70 (n=202; 19%) years. RESULTS: In first-line patients, median PFS was comparable in younger and older patients, 9.9 vs 11.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.73-1.09; P=0.2629), as was median OS, 23.6 vs 25.6 months (HR, 0.93; 95% CI: 0.74-1.18; P=0.5442). Similarly, in cytokine-refractory patients, median PFS was 8.1 vs 8.4 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; P=0.3350), while median OS was 20.2 vs 15.8 months (HR, 1.14; 95% CI: 0.73-1.79; P=0.5657). Some treatment-emergent adverse events were significantly less common in younger vs older patients, including fatigue (60% vs 69%), cough (20% vs 29%), peripheral edema (17% vs 27%), anemia (18% vs 25%), decreased appetite (13% vs 29%), and thrombocytopenia (16% vs 25%; all P<0.05). Hand-foot syndrome was more common in younger patients (32% vs 24%). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced age should not be a deterrent to sunitinib therapy and elderly patients may achieve additional clinical benefit.

First-, second-, third-line therapy for mRCC: benchmarks for trial design from the IMDC.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on outcomes for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with multiple lines of therapy. Benchmarks for survival are required for patient counselling and clinical trial design. METHODS: Outcomes of mRCC patients from the International mRCC Database Consortium database treated with 1, 2, or 3+ lines of targeted therapy (TT) were compared by proportional hazards regression. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using different population inclusion criteria. RESULTS: In total, 2705 patients were treated with TT of which 57% received only first-line TT, 27% received two lines of TT, and 16% received 3+ lines of TT. Overall survival of patients who received 1, 2, or 3+ lines of TT were 14.9, 21.0, and 39.2 months, respectively, from first-line TT (P<0.0001). On multivariable analysis, 2 lines and 3+ lines of therapy were each associated with better OS (HR=0.738 and 0.626, P<0.0001). Survival outcomes for the subgroups were as follows: for all patients, OS 20.9 months and PFS 7.2 months; for those similar to eligible patients in the first-line ADAPT trial, OS 14.7 months and PFS 5.6 months; for those similar to patients in first-line TIVO-1 trial, OS 24.8 months and PFS 8.2 months; for those similar to patients in second-line INTORSECT trial, OS 13.0 months and PFS 3.9 months; and for those similar to patients in the third-line GOLD trial, OS 18.0 months and PFS 4.4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who are able to receive more lines of TT live longer. Survival benchmarks provide context and perspective when interpreting and designing clinical trials.

Outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that do not meet eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been approved based on registration clinical trials that have strict eligibility criteria. The clinical outcomes of patients treated with targeted agents but are ineligible for trials are unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mRCC patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy were retrospectively deemed ineligible for clinical trials (according to commonly used inclusion/exclusion criteria) if they had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) <70%, nonclear-cell histology, brain metastases, hemoglobin ≤9 g/dl, creatinine >2× the upper limit of normal, corrected calcium ≥12 mg/dl, platelet count of <100 × 10(3)/uL, or neutrophil count <1500/mm(3). RESULTS: Overall, 768 of 2210 (35%) patients in the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) were deemed ineligible for clinical trials by the above criteria. Between ineligible versus eligible patients, the response rate, median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival of first-line targeted therapy were 22% versus 29% (P = 0.0005), 5.2 versus 8.6 months, and 12.5 versus 28.4 months (both P < 0.0001), respectively. Second-line PFS (if applicable) was 2.8 months in the trial ineligible versus 4.3 months in the trial eligible patients (P = 0.0039). When adjusted by the IMDC prognostic categories, the HR for death between trial ineligible and trial eligible patients was 1.55 (95% confidence interval 1.378-1.751, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients that are ineligible for clinical trials is substantial and their outcomes are inferior. Specific trials addressing the unmet needs of protocol ineligible patients are warranted.

Prognostic factors for survival in 1059 patients treated with sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and long-term OS (≥30 months) were investigated in sunitinib-treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Data were pooled from 1059 patients in six trials. Baseline variables, including ethnicity, were analysed for prognostic significance by Cox proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: Median PFS and OS were 9.7 and 23.4 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis of PFS and OS identified independent predictors, including ethnic origin, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, time from diagnosis to treatment, prior cytokine use, haemoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, corrected calcium, neutrophils, platelets, and bone metastases (OS only). Characteristics of long-term survivors (n=215, 20%) differed from those of non-long-term survivors; independent predictors of long-term OS included ethnic origin, bone metastases, and corrected calcium. There were no differences in PFS (10.5 vs 7.2 months; P=0.1006) or OS (23.8 vs 21.4 months; P=0.2135) in white vs Asian patients; however, there were significant differences in PFS (10.5 vs 5.7 months; P<0.001) and OS (23.8 vs 17.4 months; P=0.0319) in white vs non-white, non-Asian patients. CONCLUSION: These analyses identified risk factors to survival with sunitinib, including potential ethnic-based differences, and validated risk factors previously reported in advanced RCC.

Extended follow-up from JAVELIN Renal 101: subgroup analysis of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We report updated data for avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the third interim analysis of the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response per investigator assessment (RECIST version 1.1) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in the overall population and in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups; safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was not reached [42.2 months-not estimable (NE)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus 37.8 months (31.4-NE) with sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.643-0.969; one-sided P = 0.0116], and median PFS (95% CI) was 13.9 months (11.1-16.6 months) versus 8.5 months (8.2-9.7 months), respectively (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.568-0.785; one-sided P < 0.0001). In patients with IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, poor-, or intermediate plus poor-risk disease, respectively, HRs (95% CI) for OS with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.66 (0.356-1.223), 0.84 (0.649-1.084), 0.60 (0.399-0.912), and 0.79 (0.636-0.983), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.71 (0.490-1.016), 0.71 (0.578-0.866), 0.45 (0.304-0.678), and 0.66 (0.550-0.787), respectively. ORRs, complete response rates, and durations of response favored avelumab plus axitinib overall and across all risk groups. In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, 81.1% had a grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and incidences of TEAEs and immune-related AEs were highest <6 months after randomization. CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab plus axitinib continues to show improved efficacy versus sunitinib and a tolerable safety profile overall and across IMDC risk groups. The OS trend favors avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib, but data remain immature; follow-up is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02684006; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02684006.

Efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by numbers of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline in advanced renal cell carcinoma: long-term follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, first-line avelumab + axitinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (favorable, intermediate, and poor); analyses of overall survival (OS) remain immature. Here, we report post hoc analyses of efficacy from the third interim analysis (data cut-off, April 2020) by the numbers of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline. METHODS: Efficacy endpoints assessed were PFS, objective response, and best overall response per investigator assessment (RECIST v1.1) and OS. Best percentage change and percentage change from baseline in target tumor size over time during the study were also assessed. RESULTS: In patients with 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4-6 IMDC risk factors, hazard ratios [HRs; 95% confidence interval (CIs)] for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.660 (0.356-1.223), 0.745 (0.524-1.059), 0.973 (0.668-1.417), 0.718 (0.414-1.248), and 0.443 (0.237-0.829), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.490-1.016), 0.709 (0.540-0.933), 0.711 (0.527-0.960), 0.501 (0.293-0.854), and 0.395 (0.214-0.727), respectively. In patients with 1, 2, 3, or ≥4 target tumor sites, HRs (95% CIs) for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.912 (0.640-1.299), 0.715 (0.507-1.006), 0.679 (0.442-1.044), and 0.747 (0.346-1.615), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.548-0.911), 0.552 (0.422-0.723), 0.856 (0.589-1.244), and 0.662 (0.329-1.332), respectively. Across all subgroups, analyses of objective response rate and complete response rate favored avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib, and a greater proportion of patients treated with avelumab + axitinib had tumor shrinkage. CONCLUSIONS: In post hoc analyses, first-line treatment with avelumab + axitinib was generally associated with efficacy benefits versus treatment with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across subgroups defined by different numbers of IMDC risk factors or target tumor sites.

Primary anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma: clinical characteristics, risk factors, and subsequent therapy.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients treated with initial anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy exhibit progressive disease (PD) as the best response per RECIST criteria. METHODS: Data from patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with anti-VEGF therapy were collected through the International mRCC Database Consortium from 12 centers. RESULTS: One thousand and fifty-six assessable patients received initial VEGF inhibitors and 272 (26%) of these patients had PD as best response. Initial treatment included sunitinib (n = 203), sorafenib (n = 51), or bevacizumab (n = 18). Six percent of patients were at favorable risk, 55% at intermediate risk, and 39% at poor risk. On multivariable analysis, predictors of PD were Karnofsky performance status < 80% [odds ratio (OR) = 2.3, P < 0.0001], diagnosis to treatment < 1 year (OR = 2.1, P < 0.0001), neutrophilia (OR = 1.9, P = 0.0021), thrombocytosis (OR = 1.7, P = 0.0068), and anemia (OR = 1.6, P = 0.0058). Median progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PD versus without PD was 2.4 versus 11 months (P < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS) was 6.8 versus 29 months (P < 0.0001), respectively. One hundred and eight (40%) VEGF-refractory patients proceeded to receive further systemic therapies. Response rate, PFS, and OS for subsequent therapy were 9%, 2.5 months, and 7.4 months, respectively, with no statistical differences between patients who received VEGF versus mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Primary anti-VEGF-refractory mRCC patients have a dismal prognosis. Second-line anti-mTOR and anti-VEGF agents produce similar outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of avelumab plus axitinib in elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, first-line avelumab plus axitinib demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) benefit versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). However, efficacy in elderly patients remains unclear. We report efficacy and safety by age group from the second interim analysis of overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: PFS and ORR as per blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1), OS, and safety were assessed in patient groups aged <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years. RESULTS: In the avelumab plus axitinib and sunitinib arms, 271/138/33 and 275/128/41 patients aged <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years, respectively, were randomized. At data cut-off (January 2019), median PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in these respective age groups was 11.6 (8.4-19.4) versus 6.9 (5.6-8.4) months [hazard ratio (HR), 0.63; 95% CI 0.501-0.786], 13.8 (11.1-18.0) versus 11.0 (7.8-16.6) months (HR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.627-1.231), and 13.8 [7.0-not estimable (NE)] versus 9.8 (4.3-NE) months (HR, 0.76; 95% CI 0.378-1.511). Median OS (95% CI) in the respective age groups was not reached (NR) (NE-NE) versus 28.6 (25.5-NE) months (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.541-1.022), 30.0 (30.0-NE) versus NR (NE-NE) months (HR, 0.89; 95% CI 0.546-1.467), and 25.3 (19.9-NE) versus NR (19.4-NE) months (HR, 0.87; 95% CI 0.359-2.106). ORR (95% CI) in the respective age groups was 49.4% (43.3% to 55.6%) versus 27.3% (22.1% to 32.9%), 60.9% (52.2% to 69.1%) versus 28.9% (21.2% to 37.6%), and 42.4% (25.5% to 60.8%) versus 22.0% (10.6% to 37.6%). In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and immune-related AEs occurred in 76.9%/81.2%/72.7% and 45.5%/48.1%/36.4% in the respective age groups. CONCLUSIONS: First-line avelumab plus axitinib demonstrated favorable efficacy across age groups, including patients aged ≥75 years. OS data were still immature; follow-up is ongoing. The safety profile was generally consistent across age groups.

Temsirolimus in VEGF-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Temsirolimus is an i.v. administered inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin with activity in the first-line setting in poor-prognosis patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The efficacy of this agent after failure of prior inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is unknown. METHODS: a retrospective review of patients with metastatic RCC treated at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute and three regional cancer centers in Ontario, Canada, through the Torisel (temsirolimus) Compassionate Use Program was conducted. Demographic, toxicity and response data were collected. RESULTS: a total of 87 patients with metastatic RCC were identified who had previously been treated with inhibitors of VEGF subsequently treated with temsirolimus. The majority of patients had either intermediate or poor-prognosis disease at baseline. Expected toxic effects including hyperglycemia and noninfectious pneumonitis were observed. The RECIST-defined objective response rate was 5% and the stable disease rate was 65%. The median time to progression (TTP) was 3.9 months (95% confidence interval 2.8-4.8 months), and median overall survival was 11.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: in a cohort of pre-treated intermediate to poor-prognosis patients with metastatic RCC, weekly i.v. temsirolimus is associated with predictable, but manageable toxicity, and a TTP approaching 4 months.

First-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a decision-making analysis among experts.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) has been transformed by targeted therapies with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and more recently by the incorporation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Today, a spectrum of single agent TKI to TKI/ICI and ICI/ICI combinations can be considered and the choice of the best regimen is complex. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an updated decision-making analysis among 11 international kidney cancer experts. Each expert provided their treatment strategy and relevant decision criteria in the first line treatment of mccRCC. After the collection of all input a list of unified decision criteria was determined and compatible decision trees were created. We used a methodology based on diagnostic nodes, which allows for an automated cross-comparison of decision trees, to determine the most common treatment recommendations as well as deviations. RESULTS: Diverse parameters were considered relevant for treatment selection, various drugs and drug combinations were recommended by the experts. The parameters, chosen by the experts, were performance status, International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, PD-L1 status, zugzwang and contraindication to immunotherapy. The systemic therapies selected for first line treatment were sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib, ipilimumab/nivolumab or pembrolizumab/axitinib. CONCLUSION: A wide spectrum of treatment recommendations based on multiple decision criteria was demonstrated. Significant inter-expert variations were observed. This demonstrates how data from randomized trials are implemented differently when transferred into daily practice.

Efficacy and correlative analyses of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), those with sarcomatoid histology (sRCC) have the poorest prognosis. This analysis assessed the efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with treatment-naive advanced sRCC. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) enrolled patients with treatment-naive advanced RCC. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib following standard doses and schedules. Assessments in this post hoc analysis of patients with sRCC included efficacy (including progression-free survival) and biomarker analyses. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients had sarcomatoid histology and were included in this post hoc analysis; 47 patients in the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 61 in the sunitinib arm. Patients in the avelumab plus axitinib arm had improved progression-free survival [stratified hazard ratio, 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.325-1.003)] and a higher objective response rate (46.8% versus 21.3%; complete response in 4.3% versus 0%) versus those in the sunitinib arm. Correlative gene expression analyses of patients with sRCC showed enrichment of gene pathway scores for cancer-associated fibroblasts and regulatory T cells, CD274 and CD8A expression, and tumors with The Cancer Genome Atlas m3 classification. CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup analysis of JAVELIN Renal 101, patients with sRCC in the avelumab plus axitinib arm had improved efficacy outcomes versus those in the sunitinib arm. Correlative analyses provide insight into this subtype of RCC and suggest that avelumab plus axitinib may increase the chance of overcoming the aggressive features of sRCC.

Thyroid function test abnormalities in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is an orally bioavailable vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor with antitumor activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Sunitinib, also a VEGFR inhibitor, induces biochemical hypothyroidism in 85% of metastatic RCC patients, the majority of whom have signs or symptoms of hypothyroidism. Hence, the incidence of thyroid function test (TFT) abnormalities in patients with metastatic RCC receiving sorafenib was investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with metastatic RCC were treated with sorafenib at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, and 39 patients had TFTs available. RESULTS: Eight patients (21%) had thyroid dysfunction possibly caused by sorafenib [seven hypothyroidism (18%) and one hyperthyroidism (3%)] and eight additional patients (21%) had findings compatible with nonthyroidal illness. Only two patients had clinical signs and symptoms secondary to thyroid dysfunction and received thyroid hormone replacement. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, clinically significant TFT abnormalities were not common in patients treated with sorafenib, and replacement therapy was rarely indicated. TFTs should be measured before sorafenib therapy in RCC patients and subsequently only if clinically indicated.

Phase II trial of weekly intravenous gemcitabine with continuous infusion fluorouracil in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the clinical response rate of the combination of weekly intravenous (IV) gemcitabine with continuous infusion fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 1998 and February 1999, 41 patients with metastatic RCC were enrolled onto this multi-institutional phase II study of gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) over 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 and 5-FU 150 mg/m(2)/d via continuous IV infusion through a permanent catheter on days 1 to 21 of a 28-day cycle. Patients had a Cancer and Leukemia Group B performance status of 0 or 1, with a median time since diagnosis of metastatic disease of 10 months (range, 0 to 129 months). Thirty-three patients (80%) had multiple metastatic sites, and 34 patients (83%) had prior chemotherapy or immunotherapy. RESULTS: Of the 39 assessable patients, there were no complete responses but seven partial responses (objective response rate = 17%; 95% confidence interval, 8% to 34%). Five minor responses (25% to 50% decreased tumor size) were also observed. The duration of response for the seven partial responders was 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 months. Median progression-free survival for the gemcitabine/5-FU group was 28.7 weeks versus 8 weeks for a similar cohort of patients treated on previous phase II studies at the University of Chicago (P =.008). The regimen was well tolerated, with fatigue, mucositis, nausea/vomiting, and grade 2 hematologic toxicities being most common. CONCLUSION: Weekly gemcitabine with continuous infusion 5-FU is an active combination in patients with metastatic RCC. Therapy was well tolerated and produced an improvement in progression-free survival over historical controls.