Renal Cell Carcinoma of Variant Histology: New Biologic Understanding Leads to Therapeutic Advances.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the 10 most commonly diagnosed solid tumors. Most RCCs are histologically defined as clear cell, comprising approximately 75% of diagnoses. However, the remaining RCC cases are composed of a heterogeneous combination of diverse histopathologic subtypes, each with unique pathogeneses and clinical features. Although the therapeutic approach to both localized and metastatic RCCs has dramatically changed, first with the advent of antiangiogenic targeted therapies and more recently with the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations, these advances have primarily benefited the clear cell RCC patient population. As such, there remains critical gaps in the optimization of treatment regimens for patients with non-clear cell, or variant, RCC histologies. Herein, we detail recent advances in understanding the biology of RCC with variant histology and how such findings have guided novel clinical studies investigating precision oncology approaches for these rare subtypes. Among the most common variant histology RCCs are papillary RCC, comprising approximately 15%-20% of all diagnoses. Although a histopathologically diverse subset of tumors, papillary RCC is canonically associated with amplification of the MET protooncogene; recently completed and ongoing trials have investigated MET-directed therapies for this patient population. Finally, we discuss the unique biology of RCC with sarcomatoid dedifferentiation and the recent clinical findings detailing its paradoxical sensitivity to ICIs.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers.

Importance: While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol. Objective: To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings. Results: The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) (P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.

Assessment of eligibility criteria in renal cell carcinoma trials evaluating systemic therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the restrictiveness of eligibility criteria in contemporary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials, using recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Friends of Cancer Research (FCR) initiative. METHODS: vPhase I-III trials assessing systemic therapies in patients with RCC starting between 30 June 2012 and 30 June 2022 were identified. Eligibility criteria regarding brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were identified and stratified into three groups: exclusion, conditional inclusion, and not reported. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of eligibility criteria. Fisher's exact test or chi-square test were used to calculate their associations with certain trial characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 423 RCC trials were initially identified of which 112 (26.5%) had sufficient accessible information. Exclusion of patients with HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, brain metastases, and prior or concurrent malignancies were reported in 74.1%, 53.6%, 33.0%, and 8.0% of trials, respectively. In the context of HIV and HBV/HCV infection, patients were largely excluded from trials evaluating immunotherapy (94.4% and 77.8%, respectively). In addition, brain metastases were excluded in trials assessing targeted therapy (36.4%), combined therapy (33.3%), and immunotherapy (22.2%). Exclusion of patients with prior or concurrent malignancies was less frequently reported, accounting for 9.1%, 8.3%, and 5.6% targeted therapy, combined therapy and immunotherapy trials, respectively. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of RCC trials utilise restrictive eligibility criteria, excluding patients with fairly prevalent comorbidities. Implementing the ASCO-FCR recommendations will ensure resulting data are more inclusive and aligned with patient populations in the real-world.

Characterization of papillary and clear cell renal cell carcinoma through imaging mass cytometry reveals distinct immunologic profiles.

Objective: To characterize and further compare the immune cell populations of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in both clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using heavy metal-labeled antibodies in a multiplexed imaging approach (imaging mass cytometry). Materials and methods: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) baseline tumor tissues from metastatic patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) were retrospectively requisitioned from an institutional biorepository. Pretreated FFPE samples from 33 RCC patients (10 ccRCC, 23 pRCC) were accessioned and stained for imaging mass cytometry (IMC) analysis. Clinical characteristics were curated from an institutional RCC database. FFPE samples were prepared and stained with heavy metal-conjugated antibodies for IMC. An 11-marker panel of tumor stromal and immune markers was used to assess and quantify cellular relationships in TME compartments. To validate our time-of-flight (CyTOF) analysis, we cross-validated findings with The Cancer Genome Atlas Program (TCGA) analysis and utilized the CIBERSORTx tool to examine the abundance of main immune cell types in pRCC and ccRCC patients. Results: Patients with ccRCC had a longer median overall survival than did those with pRCC (67.7 vs 26.8 mo, respectively). Significant differences were identified in the proportion of CD4+ T cells between disease subtypes (ccRCC 14.1%, pRCC 7.0%, p<0.01). Further, the pRCC cohort had significantly more PanCK+ tumor cells than did the ccRCC cohort (24.3% vs 9.5%, respectively, p<0.01). There were no significant differences in macrophage composition (CD68+) between cohorts. Our results demonstrated a significant correlation between the CyTOF and TCGA analyses, specifically validating that ccRCC patients exhibit higher levels of CD4+ T cells (ccRCC 17.60%, pRCC 15.7%, p<0.01) and CD8+ T cells (ccRCC 17.83%, pRCC 11.15%, p<0.01). The limitation of our CyTOF analysis was the large proportion of cells that were deemed non-characterizable. Conclusions: Our findings emphasize the need to investigate the TME in distinct RCC histological subtypes. We observed a more immune infiltrative phenotype in the TME of the ccRCC cohort than in the pRCC cohort, where a tumor-rich phenotype was noted. As practical predictive biomarkers remain elusive across all subtypes of RCC, further studies are warranted to analyze the biomarker potential of such TME classifications.

Association Between Time-of-Day of Immune Checkpoint Blockade Administration and Outcomes in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical evidence demonstrating circadian rhythmicity within the immune system provides a rationale for hypothesis that immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) infusion time-of-day may serve as an actionable mechanism to improve outcomes. Herein, we explore the association between ICI time of infusion (TOI) and outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: Data from patients with mRCC who received nivolumab or nivolumab/ipilimumab, in first- or second-line were retrospectively collected. Patients who received < 20% of infusions after 16:30 were assigned to the early TOI sub-cohort, while the rest were assigned to the late TOI sub-cohort. Clinical outcomes were compared across the 2 groups. RESULTS: Among 135 patients included, 89 (65.9%) and 46 (34.1%) were assigned to early and late TOI sub-cohorts, respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable across the 2 sub-cohorts. Objective response rate (ORR) was 36.0% with early TOI versus 29.5% with late TOI (P = .157). Median time to treatment failure (TTF) was 9.5 months in the early TOI sub-cohort versus 4.6 months in the late TOI sub-cohort with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.405 (95% CI, 0.919-2.149; P = .11) in univariate analysis and 1.694 (95% CI, 1.064-2.698; P = .026) in multivariate analysis. Higher cut offs allocating patients into the late TOI sub-cohort yielded an incremental increase in the HR for TTF and overall survival (OS) that reached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mRCC, early TOI yielded a numerical increase in ORR, TTF and OS, with the TTF difference reaching significance in multivariate analysis. Prospective randomized studies are warranted to examine the impact of chronomodulation on outcomes with ICIs in mRCC.

Real-World Outcomes of Latinx Versus Non-Latinx Patients Treated With First-Line Immunotherapy for Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the impact of ethnicity among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We evaluated real-world outcomes between Latinx and non-Latinx patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first-line nivolumab/ipilimumab within 2 different healthcare settings. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with mRCC who received nivolumab/ipilimumab within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC-DHS), a safety-net healthcare system, and the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center (COH), a tertiary oncology center, between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2021. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and covariates were adjusted using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Of 94 patients, 40 patients (43%) were Latinx while the remainder were non-Latinx (44 pts [46%] White, 7 pts [7%] Asian, and 3 pts [3%] Other). Fifty (53%) and 44 (47%) patients received their care at COH and LAC-DHS, respectively. Most Latinx patients (95%) were treated at LAC-DHS, and most non-Latinx patients (89%) were treated at COH. Pooled analysis by ethnicity demonstrated significantly shorter PFS in Latinx versus non-Latinx patients (10.1 vs. 25.2 months, hazard ratios [HR] 3.61, 95% CI 1.96-6.66, P ≤ .01). Multivariate analysis revealed a HR of 3.41 (95% CI 1.31-8.84; P = .01). At a median follow-up of 11.0 months, the median OS was not reached in either arm at the time of data cutoff. CONCLUSION: Latinx patients with mRCC had a shorter PFS treated with frontline nivolumab/ipilimumab compared to their non-Latinx counterparts. No difference was observed in OS although these data were immature. Larger studies are needed to further interrogate the social and economic determinants of ethnicity on clinical outcomes in mRCC.

Examining Exclusion Criteria in Advanced Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials: An Assessment of recommendations From the American Society Of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research.

PURPOSE: Eligibility criteria illustrate the characteristics of the study population and promote the safety of participants. However, overreliance on restrictive eligibility criteria may limit the generalizability of outcomes. As a result, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) issued statements to curtail these challenges. In this study, we aimed to assess restrictiveness in eligibility criteria across advanced prostate cancer clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all phase I, II, and III advanced prostate cancer clinical trials between June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2022, through Clinicaltrials.gov. We evaluated whether a clinical trial excluded, conditionally included, or did not report 4 common criteria: brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, and hepatitis B virus (HBV)/hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Performance status (PS) criteria were recorded based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale. RESULTS: Out of 699 clinical trials within our search strategy, 265 (37.9%) trials possessed all the required data and were included in our analysis. The most common excluded condition of our interest was brain metastases (60.8%), followed by HIV positivity (46.4%), HBV/HCV positivity (46.0%), and concurrent malignancies (15.5%). Additionally, 50.9% of clinical trials only included patients with ECOG PS 0 to 1. HIV and HBV/HCV infection were exclusion criteria of 22 (80.8%) and 19 (73.1%) immunotherapy trials, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, or low-functioning PS were overly restricted from participating in advanced prostate clinical trials. Advocating for broader criteria may ameliorate generalizability.

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma to the pancreas and other sites-a multicenter retrospective study.

Background: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a heterogenous disease with poor 5-year overall survival (OS) at 14%. Patients with mRCC to endocrine organs historically have prolonged OS. Pancreatic metastases are uncommon overall, with mRCC being the most common etiology of pancreatic metastases. In this study, we report the long-term outcomes of patients with mRCC to the pancreas in two separate cohorts. Methods: We performed a multicenter, international retrospective cohort study of patients with mRCC to the pancreas at 15 academic centers. Cohort 1 included 91 patients with oligometastatic disease to the pancreas. Cohort 2 included 229 patients with multiples organ sites of metastases including the pancreas. The primary endpoint for Cohorts 1 and 2 was median OS from time of metastatic disease in the pancreas until death or last follow up. Findings: In Cohort 1, the median OS (mOS) was 121 months with a median follow up time of 42 months. Patients who underwent surgical resection of oligometastatic disease had mOS of 100 months with a median follow-up time of 52.5 months. The mOS for patients treated with systemic therapy was not reached. In Cohort 2, the mOS was 90.77 months. Patients treated with first-line (1L) VEGFR therapy had mOS of 90.77 months; patients treated with IL immunotherapy (IO) had mOS of 92 months; patients on 1L combination VEGFR/IO had mOS of 74.9 months. Interpretations: This is the largest retrospective cohort of mRCC involving the pancreas. We confirmed the previously reported long-term outcomes in patients with oligometastatic pancreas disease and demonstrated prolonged survival in patients with multiple RCC metastases that included the pancreas. In this retrospective study with heterogeneous population treated over 2 decades, mOS was similar when stratified by first-line therapy. Future research will be needed to determine whether mRCC patients with pancreatic metastases require a different initial treatment strategy. Funding: Statistical analyses for this study were supported in part by the University of Colorado Cancer Center Support Grant from the NIH/NCI, P30CA046934-30.

Safety and Activity of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in People Living With HIV and Cancer: A Real-World Report From the Cancer Therapy Using Checkpoint Inhibitors in People Living With HIV-International (CATCH-IT) Consortium.

PURPOSE: Compared with people living without HIV (PWOH), people living with HIV (PWH) and cancer have traditionally been excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Furthermore, there is a paucity of real-world data on the use of ICIs in PWH and cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study included PWH treated with anti-PD-1- or anti-PD-L1-based therapies for advanced cancers. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rates (ORRs) were measured per RECIST 1.1 or other tumor-specific criteria, whenever feasible. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to compare OS and PFS between matched PWH and PWOH with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). RESULTS: Among 390 PWH, median age was 58 years, 85% (n = 331) were males, 36% (n = 138) were Black; 70% (n = 274) received anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 monotherapy. Most common cancers were NSCLC (28%, n = 111), hepatocellular carcinoma ([HCC]; 11%, n = 44), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; 10%, n = 39). Seventy percent (152/216) had CD4+ T cell counts ≥200 cells/µL, and 94% (179/190) had HIV viral load <400 copies/mL. Twenty percent (79/390) had any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 7.7% (30/390) had grade ≥3 irAEs. ORRs were 69% (nonmelanoma skin cancer), 31% (NSCLC), 16% (HCC), and 11% (HNSCC). In the matched mNSCLC cohort (61 PWH v 110 PWOH), 20% (12/61) PWH and 22% (24/110) PWOH had irAEs. Adjusted 42-month RMST difference was -0.06 months (95% CI, -5.49 to 5.37; P = .98) for PFS and 2.23 months (95% CI, -4.02 to 8.48; P = .48) for OS. CONCLUSION: Among PWH, ICIs demonstrated differential activity across cancer types with no excess toxicity. Safety and activity of ICIs were similar between matched cohorts of PWH and PWOH with mNSCLC.

Ultrasensitive Circulating Tumor DNA Pilot Study Distinguishes Complete Response and Partial Response With Immunotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been validated across multiple indications in the adjuvant and surveillance settings. We evaluated whether targeted digital sequencing (TARDIS) may distinguish a partial response (PR) from a complete response (CR) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had mRCC that yielded a PR or CR to ICI therapy. Peripheral blood was obtained at a single time point for ctDNA analysis. TARDIS was used for quantification of average variant allele fractions (VAFs). Our primary objective was to determine the association between VAFs and depth of response (PR v CR). A secondary objective was to determine whether VAFs were associated with disease progression. RESULTS: Twelve patients were analyzed, nine of whom achieved a PR (75%). Patients received either nivolumab monotherapy (50%) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (50%). ctDNA analysis incorporated an average of 30 patient-specific mutations (range, 19-35); average coverage depth was 103,342 reads per target. TARDIS quantified a significant difference in VAFs between PR and CR (median, 0.181% [IQR, 0.077%-0.420%] v 0.007% [IQR, 0.0%-0.028%], respectively [P = .014]). Of the 12 patients in the series, six patients demonstrated radiographic progression subsequent to ctDNA assessment. Patients who progressed on subsequent scans had significantly higher ctDNA than those who maintained their response (median, 0.362% [IQR, 0.181%-2.71%] v 0.033% [IQR, 0.007%-0.077%], respectively [P = .026]). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, TARDIS accurately differentiated PR from CR among patients with mRCC receiving immunotherapy, and also prospectively identified patients at risk for subsequent progression. Given these findings, we envision subsequent studies that validate these results and investigate the utility of this assay to discern appropriate candidates for discontinuation of immunotherapy.

Race/Ethnicity and Gender Representation in Hematology and Oncology Editorial Boards: What is the State of Diversity?

INTRODUCTION: Women and underrepresented groups in medicine hold few academic leadership positions in the field of hematology/oncology. In this study, we assessed gender and race/ethnicity representation in editorial board positions in hematology/oncology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Editorial leadership board members from 60 major journals in hematology and oncology were reviewed; 54 journals were included in the final analysis. Gender and race/ethnicity were determined based on publicly available data for Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and Second-in-Command (SiC) (including deputy, senior, or associate editors). Descriptive statistics and chi-squared were estimated. In the second phase of the study, editors were emailed a 4-item survey to self-identify their demographics. RESULTS: Out of 793 editorial board members, 72.6% were men and 27.4% were women. Editorial leadership were non-Hispanic white (71.1%) with Asian editorial board members representing the second largest majority at 22.5%. Women comprised only 15.9% of the EiC positions (90% White and 10% Asian). Women were about half as likely to be in the EiC position compared with men [pOR 0.47 (95% CI, 0.23-0.95, P = .03)]. Women represented 28.3% of SiC editorial positions. Surgical oncology had the lowest female representation at 2.3%. CONCLUSION: Women and minorities are significantly underrepresented in leadership roles on Editorial Boards in hematology/oncology journals. Importantly, the representation of minority women physicians in EiC positions is at an inexorable zero.

Twelve-Month Follow-up of the Immune Response After COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Genitourinary Cancers: A Prospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vaccinations against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have had a transformative impact on morbidity and mortality. However, the long-term impact of vaccination on patients with genitourinary cancers is currently unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study aimed to assess seroconversion rates in patients with genitourinary cancers receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Patients with prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or urothelial cancer who had not been vaccinated for COVID-19 were included. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and after 2, 6, and 12 months of one dose of an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine. Antibody titer analysis was performed using the SCoV-2 Detect IgG ELISA assay, and the results were reported as immune status ratio (ISR). A paired t-test was used for comparison of ISR values between timepoints. In addition, T-cell receptor (TCR) sequencing was performed to assess for differences in TCR repertoire 2 months after vaccination. RESULTS: Out of 133 patients enrolled, 98 baseline blood samples were collected. At 2-, 6-, and 12-month time points 98, 70, and 50 samples were collected, respectively. Median age was 67 (IQR, 62-75), with the majority of patients diagnosed with prostate (55.1%) or renal cell carcinoma (41.8%). Compared to baseline (0.24 [95% CI, 0.19-0.31]) a significant increase in the geometric mean ISR values was observed at the 2-month timepoint (5.59 [4.76-6.55]) (P < .001). However, at the 6-month timepoint, a significant decrease in the ISR values was observed (4.66 [95% CI, 4.04-5.38]; P < .0001). Notably, at the 12-month timepoint, the addition of a booster dose resulted in an absolute increase in the ISR values compared to those who did not receive a booster dose (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of patients with genitourinary cancers did not ultimately achieve satisfactory seroconversion after receiving commercial COVID-19 vaccination. Cancer type or treatment rendered did not appear to affect the immune response mounted after vaccination.

Outcomes With Combination Pembrolizumab and Axitinib in Second and Further Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Combination immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-R-TKI), including pembrolizumab/axitinib, are approved for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pembrolizumab/axitinib is associated with superior progression free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival over sunitinib. However, to date, the activity and safety of pembrolizumab/axitinib in later lines of therapy has not been reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data of consecutive patients receiving pembrolizumab/axitinib in the second-line or beyond for mRCC at Yale-New Haven Hospital were retrospectively collected. Best objective response was assessed using RECIST 1.1 criteria. Kaplan-Meier function was used to analyze survival. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were included. Median age was 64, 92.1% had clear cell mRCC, 18.4% had sarcomatoid dedifferentiation; 94.7% had prior ICI and 39.5% had prior VEGF-R-TKI. Pembrolizumab/axitinib was administered as second-line therapy in 21 (55.5%) patients, third-line in 5 (13.2%) and beyond in 12 (30.2%). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86.8% of patients. Grade 3-4 AEs attributed to pembrolizumab and axitinib were seen in 18.4% and 6.4% of patients, respectively. No grade 5 AEs occurred. At a median follow up of 17.1 months, median PFS was 9.7 months (95% CI, 4.1-15.3). Amongst 36 response evaluable patients, the ORR was 25.0% (all partial) and disease control rate (including stable disease for at least 6 months) was 66.6%. The most frequent treatment sequence was first-line nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by second-line pembrolizumab/axitinib (n = 17, 44.7%); among this cohort, median PFS with pembrolizumab/axitinib was 11.1 (95% CI, 8.4-13.7) months, with an ORR of 31.4%. CONCLUSION: Combination pembrolizumab/axitinib among previously treated mRCC patients has activity, with AE rates comparable to those reported in the first line. Prospective studies evaluating ICI-VEGF-R-TKI combinations beyond first-line are warranted to identify the most beneficial treatment sequencing in mRCC.

Genomic and Transcriptomic Predictors of Response from Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Patients with Oligoprogressive Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been shown to be safe and effective for delaying systemic treatment change among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this study, we sought to assess the genomic signatures of patients with mRCC who underwent SBRT for oligoprogression. A total of 30 patients with oligoprogressive disease were identified, the majority of whom had clear cell renal cell carcinoma (83.3%) and were receiving first-line treatment (53.3%). Genomic and transcriptomic sequencing were available in 20 and 16 patients, respectively. Duration of systemic treatment (DOT) was categorized as that prior (DOT[P]) and subsequent (DOT[S]) to radiation treatment. The median DOT(P) and DOT(S) were 15.1 and 18.3 mo, respectively, with a median DOT(S)/DOT(P) ratio of 1.4. Patients who had a DOT(S)/DOT(P) ratio of ≥1 had increased expression in pathways related to cell proliferation and development. In contrast, among patients with a ratio of ≤1, the reactive oxygen species pathway was enriched. This study highlights the potential role of genomics and transcriptomics to refine radiation treatment selection in patients with mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we looked at mutations and genomic expressions among kidney cancer patients who responded better to stereotactic body radiotherapy. We found that enriched expression of certain pathways might play a role in response to radiotherapy.

Genomic and Clinical Prognostic Factors in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Recently data suggest that telomerase reverse transcripatase (TERT) promoter mutations portend superior outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in mUC. In our retrospective analysis from 2 tertiary cancer centers, we assessed the predictive role of TERT mutations along with other parameters. METHODS: Patient registries were queried for patients treated with ICI for mUC with available genomic and clinical data. Select clinical and laboratory parameters, in addition to primary tumor site, histology, treatment modality, and setting were recorded. Tumor mutational burden (TMB), and mutational status of TERT, CDKN2A, CDKN2B, TMB, TP53, RB1, KMT2D, ARID1A, ERBB2, KDM6A, PIK3CA, FGFR3, and ATM were noted. Univariate analysis of significance concerning overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was conducted. RESULTS: In total, 113 patients were found to meet inclusion criteria. In our study, ORR was 55%, median PFS was 5.1 months (0.2-71.8), and median OS was 13.4 months (0.2-84.8). On univariate analysis, female sex, NLR>5, and ATM mutation were associated with inferior PFS and OS, whereas upper tract primary disease and ECOG score ≥ 2 were associated with worse OS. On multivariate analysis, NLR >5 was associated with worse PFS and OS whereas upper tract primary disease, albumin <3.4 g/dL, hemoglobin <10 g/dL and ATM mutation were significantly associated with worse OS on multivariate analysis. No significant differences were seen in ORR, PFS, or OS regarding TERT promoter mutations. CONCLUSION: TERT promoter mutations were not significantly associated with any difference in outcome in patients treated with ICI.

Cabozantinib Safety With Different Anticoagulants in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) on cabozantinib, venous thromboembolism (VTE) management remains challenging due to limited safety data regarding direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) use in conjunction with cabozantinib. We investigated the safety of cabozantinib with different anticoagulants in patients with RCC. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study (9 sites), patients with advanced RCC were allocated into 4 groups: (1) cabozantinib without anticoagulation, cabozantinib with concomitant use of (2) DOACs, (3) low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), or (4) warfarin. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of major bleeding events (defined per International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of new/recurrent VTE while anticoagulated. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2020, 298 patients with RCC received cabozantinib (no anticoagulant = 178, LMWH = 41, DOAC = 64, and warfarin = 15). Most patients had clear cell histology (78.5%) and IMDC intermediate/poor disease (78.2%). Cabozantinib was first, second, or ≥ third line in 21.8%, 31.9%, 43.3% of patients, respectively. Overall, there was no difference in major bleeding events between the no anticoagulant, LMWH, and DOAC groups (P = .088). Rate of new/recurrent VTE was similar among anticoagulant groups. Patients with a VTE had a statistically significantly worse survival than without a VTE (HR 1.48 [CI 95% 1.05-2.08, P = .02]). CONCLUSION: This real-world cohort provides first data on bleeding and thrombosis complications in patients with RCC treated with cabozantinib with or without concurrent anticoagulation. DOACs appear safe for VTE treatment for patients with RCC on cabozantinib, but optimized anticoagulation management, including individualized risk-benefit discussion, remains important in clinical practice.

Perceptions of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Genitourinary Cancers: A Survey Study.

Since the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines, their safety and efficacy has been widely demonstrated in patients with cancer. However, there remain patients with reservations regarding vaccination. We aimed to assess genitourinary cancer patients' perceptions of the vaccines as well as barriers and influencers of decision-making through the completion of a questionnaire. While vaccine-associated concerns were observed, most patients with genitourinary cancers were willing to receive the vaccine. Moving forward, differing strategies could be considered to enhance patient education on the utility of vaccination in the setting of cancer and beyond.

Targeting STAT3 in tumor-associated antigen-presenting cells as a strategy for kidney and bladder cancer immunotherapy.

Introduction: Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) improved clinical outcomes in renal and bladder cancer patients, but the response rates remain limited especially in metastatic disease. While STAT3 transcription factor is well-known master regulator of tumor immune evasion, little is known about the role of STAT3 in the resistance of renal or bladder cancers to immunotherapy. Methods: To better understand immune alterations associated with ICB resistance, we assessed blood biomarkers in renal cancer patients classified as responders or non-responders to first line nivolumab/ipilimumab immunotherapy. Results: We observed that non-responders showed elevated levels of proinflammatory mediators, such as IL-1RA, IL-6, IL-8 and to lesser extent IL-10, which are associated with STAT3 activation and tumor immunosuppression. In addition, we found STAT3 activation primarily in circulating myeloid immune cells such as tolerogenic MDSCs. To assess whether STAT3 inhibition within these cell subsets can promote antitumor immune responses and/or enhance sensitivity to ICB in vivo, we used an original antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) strategy for myeloid-cell selective STAT3 knockdown (CpG-STAT3ASO). Our results in syngeneic models of renal and bladder cancers in mice demonstrated potent antitumor activity of CpG-STAT3ASO alone in contrast to PD1 blockade alone in both models. The CpG-STAT3ASO/anti-PD1 combination improved therapeutic efficacy especially against bladder tumors. Therapeutic efficacy correlated with activation of dendritic cells (DCs) and M1 macrophages in the tumor microenvironment, reduced percentages of regulatory T cells (Tregs) and the expansion of CD8 T cells in both tumor models. Discussion/Conclusion: Our study underscores the potential of using myeloid-cell targeted CpG-STAT3 inhibitors for genitourinary cancer therapy to disrupt tolerogenic signaling, restore immune cell activity and sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors and/or T cell-based immunotherapies.

Missing the trees for the forest: most subgroup analyses using forest plots at the ASCO annual meeting are inconclusive.

Background: Oncologists often refer to forest plots to determine which patient subgroups may be more likely to benefit from a therapy tested in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). We sought to empirically determine the information content of subgroup comparisons from forest plots of RCTs. Methods: We assessed all forest plots from RCTs of therapeutic interventions presented orally at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meetings in 2020 and 2021. Subgroups were considered as showing evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity in forest plots when their confidence intervals (CIs) did not overlap with the vertical line corresponding to the main effect observed in the overall RCT cohort. Subgroups were considered as showing evidence of treatment effect homogeneity in forest plots when their CIs did not meaningfully differ, within 80-125% equivalence range, with the values compatible with the main effect. All other subgroups were considered as inconclusive. Results: A total of 99 forest plots were presented, and only 24.2% contained one or more subgroups suggestive of treatment effect heterogeneity. A total of 81 forest plots provided enough information to evaluate treatment effect heterogeneity and homogeneity. These 81 forest plots represented a total of 1344 individual subgroups, of which 57.2% were inconclusive, 41.1% showed evidence of treatment effect homogeneity, and 1.6% yielded evidence suggestive of treatment effect heterogeneity. Conclusion: The majority of subgroup comparisons were inconclusive in this empirical analysis of forest plots used in oncology RCTs. Different strategies should be considered to improve the estimation and representation of subgroup-specific effects.