NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Melanoma: Cutaneous, Version 2.2021.

Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.

A Living, Interactive Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of First-line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

CONTEXT: Identifying the most effective first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is challenging as rapidly evolving data quickly outdate the existing body of evidence, and current approaches to presenting the evidence in user-friendly formats are fraught with limitations. OBJECTIVE: To maintain living evidence for contemporary first-line treatment for previously untreated mRCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR) and network meta-analysis for first-line treatment of mRCC using data from randomized controlled trials comparing contemporary treatment options with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We applied an advanced programming and artificial intelligence-assisted framework for evidence synthesis to create a living search strategy, facilitate screening and data extraction using a graphical user interface, automate the frequentist network meta-analysis, and display results in an interactive manner. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: As of October 22, 2020, the LISR includes data from 14 clinical trials. Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table. The cabozantinib + nivolumab combination (CaboNivo) is ranked the highest for the overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, whereas ipilimumab + nivolumab (NivoIpi) is ranked the highest for achieving a complete response (CR). NivoIpi, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AteBev) were ranked highest (lowest toxicity) and CaboNivo ranked lowest for treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Network meta-analysis results are summarized as interactive tables and plots, GRADE summary-of-findings tables, and evidence maps. CONCLUSIONS: This innovative living and interactive review provides the best current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatment options for patients with untreated mRCC. Trial-level comparisons suggest that CaboNivo is likely to cause more AEs but is ranked best for all efficacy outcomes, except NivoIpi offers the best chance of CR. Pembrolizumab + axitinib and NivoIpi are acceptable alternatives, except NivoIpi may not be preferred for patients with favorable risk. Although network meta-analysis provides rankings with statistical adjustments, there are inherent biases in cross-trial comparisons with sparse direct evidence that does not replace randomized comparisons. PATIENT SUMMARY: It is challenging to decide the best option among the several treatment combinations of immunotherapy and targeted treatments for newly diagnosed metastatic kidney cancer. We have created interactive evidence summaries of multiple treatment options that present the benefits and harms and evidence certainty for patient-important outcomes. This evidence is updated as soon as new studies are published.

Identifying treatment options for BRAFV600 wild-type metastatic melanoma: A SU2C/MRA genomics-enabled clinical trial.

Although combination BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective for the 40-50% of cutaneous metastatic melanomas harboring BRAFV600 mutations, targeted agents have been ineffective for BRAFV600wild-type (wt) metastatic melanomas. The SU2C Genomics-Enabled Medicine for Melanoma Trial utilized a Simon two-stage optimal design to assess whether comprehensive genomic profiling improves selection of molecular-based therapies for BRAFV600wt metastatic melanoma patients who had progressed on standard-of-care therapy, which may include immunotherapy. Of the response-evaluable patients, binimetinib was selected for 20 patients randomized to the genomics-enabled arm, and nine were treated on the alternate treatment arm. Response rates for 27 patients treated with targeted recommendations included one (4%) partial response, 18 (67%) with stable disease, and eight (30%) with progressive disease. Post-trial genomic and protein pathway activation mapping identified additional drug classes that may be considered for future studies. Our results highlight the complexity and heterogeneity of metastatic melanomas, as well as how the lack of response in this trial may be associated with limitations including monotherapy drug selection and the dearth of available single and combination molecularly-driven therapies to treat BRAFV600wt metastatic melanomas.

Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Following Disease Progression on Atezolizumab or Sunitinib Monotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in IMmotion150: A Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy as second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cancer (mRCC) has not been evaluated prospectively. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab following disease progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy in patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: IMmotion150 was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of patients with untreated mRCC. Patients randomized to the atezolizumab or sunitinib arm who had investigator-assessed progression as per RECIST 1.1 could be treated with second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab. INTERVENTION: Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (IV) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 wk following disease progression on either atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The secondary endpoints analyzed during the second-line part of IMmotion150 included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. PFS was examined using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Fifty-nine patients in the atezolizumab arm and 78 in the sunitinib arm were eligible, and 103 initiated second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezolizumab arm, n = 44; sunitinib arm, n = 59). ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 27% (19-37%). The median PFS (95% CI) from the start of second line was 8.7 (5.6-13.7) mo. The median event follow-up duration was 19.4 (12.9-21.9) mo among the 25 patients without a PFS event. Eighty-six (83%) patients had treatment-related adverse events; 31 of 103 (30%) had grade 3/4 events. Limitations were the small sample size and selection for progressors. CONCLUSIONS: The atezolizumab + bevacizumab combination had activity and was tolerable in patients with progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib. Further studies are needed to investigate sequencing strategies in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with advanced kidney cancer whose disease had worsened during treatment with atezolizumab or sunitinib began second-line treatment with atezolizumab + bevacizumab. Tumors shrank in more than one-quarter of patients treated with this combination, and side effects were manageable.

Long-term safety of pembrolizumab monotherapy and relationship with clinical outcome: A landmark analysis in patients with advanced melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term safety of pembrolizumab in melanoma was analyzed in KEYNOTE-001, KEYNOTE-002, and KEYNOTE-006. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis involved patients who received ≥1 pembrolizumab dose. Lead-time bias was addressed via landmark analyses in patients who were progression-free before day 147. RESULTS: Adverse events (AEs) were analyzed for 1567 patients (median follow-up, 42.4 months). Most AEs were mild/moderate; grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 17.7% of patients. Two pembrolizumab-related deaths occurred. Any-grade immune-mediated AEs (imAEs) occurred in 23.0%, most commonly hypothyroidism (9.1%), pneumonitis (3.3%), and hyperthyroidism (3.0%); grade 3/4 imAEs occurred in 6.9% of patients. Most imAEs occurred within 16 weeks of treatment. In landmark analysis, patients who did (n = 79) versus did not (n = 384) develop imAEs had similar objective response rates (ORRs) (64.6% versus 63.0%); median time to response (TTR), 5.6 months for both; median duration of response (DOR), 20.0 versus 25.3 months; median progression-free survival (PFS), 17.0 versus 17.7 months; median overall survival (OS), not reached (NR) versus 43 months (p = 0.1104). Patients who did (n = 17) versus did not (n = 62) receive systemic corticosteroids had similar ORRs (70.6% vs. 62.9%) and median TTR (6.4 vs. 5.6 months) but numerically shorter median PFS (9.9 vs. 17.0 months); median DOR, 14.2 months versus NR; median OS, NR for both. CONCLUSIONS: These results enhance the knowledge base for pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma, with no new toxicity signals after lengthy follow-up of a large population. In landmark analyses, pembrolizumab efficacy was similar regardless of imAEs or systemic corticosteroid use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: NCT01295827, NCT01704287, NCT01866319.

A Phase II Study of Glembatumumab Vedotin for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

Glembatumumab vedotin (CDX-011, GV) is a fully human Immunoglobulin G2 monoclonal antibody directed against glycoprotein NMB coupled via a peptide linker to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), a potent cytotoxic microtubule inhibitor. This phase II study evaluated the overall response rate and safety of GV, glycoprotein NMB (GPNMB) expression, and survival in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Eligible patients with metastatic uveal melanoma who had not previously been treated with chemotherapy received GV 1.9 mg/kg every three weeks. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included GPNMB expression, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity analysis. GPNMB expression was assessed pre- and post-treatment via immunohistochemistry for patients with available tumor tissue. Out of 35 patients who received treatment, two patients had confirmed partial responses (PRs; 6%), and 18 patients had a stable disease (SD; 51%) as the best objective response. 38% of the patients had stable disease >100 days. The grade 3 or 4 toxicities that occurred in two or more patients were neutropenia, rash, hyponatremia, and vomiting. The median progression-free survival was 3.1 months (95% CI: 1.5-5.6), and the median overall survival was 11.9 months (95% CI 9.0-16.9) in the evaluable study population. GV is well-tolerated in metastatic uveal melanoma. The disease control rate was 57% despite a low objective response rate. Exploratory immune correlation studies are underway to provide insight into target saturation, combination strategies, and antigen release.

Health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immunotherapies in real-world clinical practice settings.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are approved advanced melanoma (AM) immunotherapies. To address limited health-related quality of life (QoL) real-world evidence with immunotherapies in AM, we compared QoL in AM patients receiving either treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: A prospective US observational study enrolled adult AM patients initiating first-line PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between June 2017 and March 2018. Endpoints included the QLQ-C30 global health score (GHS) and EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Mean changes were compared using repeated measures mixed-effects models and are presented covariate adjusted. RESULTS: 225 PEMBRO and 187 IPI + NIVO patients were enrolled. From baseline through week 24, PEMBRO was associated with 3.2 mean GHS score increase (95% CI 0.5, 5.9; p = .02), while no change was observed with IPI + NIVO; 0.2 (95% CI - 2.6, 3.0; p = 0.87). Among objective treatment-responders, GHS scores associated with PEMBRO increased 6.0 (95% CI 3.1, 8.8; p < .0001); IPI + NIVO patients increased 3.8 (95% CI 0.8, 6.9; p = .01). In treatment non-responders, IPI + NIVO was associated with GHS/QoL deterioration of - 3.7 (95% CI - 6.8, - 0.6; p = .02), PEMBRO non-responders demonstrated no change; 0.7 (95% CI - 2.3, 3.7; p = 0.6). Between treatments, PEMBRO patients increased 2.6 greater in EQ-VAS (95% CI 0.6, 4.5; p = .01) vs IPI + NIVO at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: PEMBRO was associated with better 24-week QoL compared to IPI + NIVO in actual clinical practice settings. Real-world data has known limitations, but with further confirmation these results may have implications for treatment selection.

Patient-reported outcomes in a phase 2 study comparing atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab vs sunitinib in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks (n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6-week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2-point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. RESULTS: Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue-related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22-0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12-0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22-0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. CONCLUSION: PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

Assessment of clinical outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in melanoma patients with CDKN2A and TP53 pathogenic mutations.

BACKGROUND: CDKN2A and TP53 mutations are recurrent events in melanoma, occurring in 13.3% and 15.1% of cases respectively and are associated with poorer outcomes. It is unclear what effect CDKN2A and TP53 mutations have on the clinical outcomes of patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS: All patients with cutaneous melanoma or melanoma of unknown primary who received checkpoint inhibitor therapy and underwent genomic profiling with the 50-gene Mayo Clinic solid tumor targeted cancer gene panel were included. Patients were stratified according to the presence or absence of mutations in BRAF, NRAS, CDKN2A, and TP53. Patients without mutations in any of these genes were termed quadruple wild type (QuadWT). Clinical outcomes including median time to progression (TTP), median overall survival (OS), 6-month and 12-month OS, 6-month and 12-month without progression, ORR and disease control rate (DCR) were analyzed according to the mutational status of CDKN2A, TP53 and QuadWT. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were included in this study of which 14 had mutations of CDKN2A (CDKN2Amut), 21 had TP53 mutations (TP53mut), and 12 were QuadWT. TP53mut, CDKN2Amut and QuadWT mutational status did not impact clinical outcomes including median TTP, median OS, 6-month and 12-month OS, 6-month and 12-month without progression, ORR and DCR. There was a trend towards improved median TTP and DCR in CDKN2Amut cohort and a trend towards worsened median TTP in the QuadWT cohort. CONCLUSION: Cell cycle regulators such as TP53 and CDKN2A do not appear to significantly alter clinical outcomes when immune checkpoint inhibitors are used.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Uveal Melanoma, Version 1.2019.

The NCCN Guidelines for Uveal Melanoma include recommendations for staging, treatment, and follow-up of patients diagnosed with uveal melanoma of the choroid or ciliary body. In addition, because distinguishing between uveal melanoma and benign uveal nevi is in some cases difficult, these guidelines also contain recommendations for workup of patients with suspicious pigmented uveal lesions, to clarify the tests needed to distinguish between those who should have further workup and treatment for uveal melanoma versus those with uncertain diagnosis and low risk who should to be followed and later reevaluated. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe recommendations for treatment of newly diagnosed nonmetastatic uveal melanoma in patients who have already undergone a complete workup.

Hospitalization and emergency department utilization in patients with advanced melanoma receiving pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab plus nivolumab in US academic centers.

Background: Both pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are FDA-approved immunotherapy regimens for advanced melanoma (AM). Each regimen has different toxicity profiles potentially impacting healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). This study compared real-world hospitalization and emergency department (ED) utilization within 12 months of therapy initiation of each regimen.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in AM patients ≥18 years old initiating PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between January 1, 2016-December 30, 2017. Patients were identified from 12 US-based academic and satellite centers. All-cause hospitalization ED visits were identified. These events were used to calculate rates per 1,000 patient months. Utilization between groups was compared using multivariate logistic regression.Results: In total, 400 patients were included (200 PEMBRO, 200 IPI + NIVO). PEMBRO vs IPI + NIVO patients had poorer Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) performance status, 29% 2-4, vs 12% (p < .001); more diabetes, 21% vs 13% (p = .045); were more often PD-L1 expression positive, 77% vs 63% (p = .011); and less likely BRAF mutant, 35% vs 50% (p = .003). The proportion with more than one hospitalization over 12 months was 17% PEMBRO vs 24% IPI + NIVO. Less than 2% had more than one admission and none had more than two. Unadjusted mean (SD) hospitalizations per 1,000 patient-months were 16 (37) and 20 (38), PEMBRO and IPI + NIVO, respectively. Adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization was 0.6 (95% CI = 0.3-0.9; p = .027) for PEMBRO vs IPI + NIVO. ED visits occurred in 18% vs 21%, PEMBRO and IPI + NIVO, respectively, 0.7 (p = .186).Conclusions: PEMBRO patients had a significantly lower probability of hospitalization through 12 months vs IPI + NIVO. The probability of ED visits did not differ.

The society for immunotherapy of cancer consensus statement on immunotherapy for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

The approval of immunotherapeutic agents and immunotherapy-based combination strategies in recent years has revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody, was approved as monotherapy in 2015 for aRCC after treatment with a VEGF-targeting agent. In April 2018, the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab, a CTLA-4 inhibitor, was approved for intermediate- and poor-risk, previously untreated patients with aRCC. Then, in 2019, combinations therapies consisting of pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) or avelumab (anti-PD-ligand (L) 1) with axitinib (a VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor) were also approved to treat aRCC and are likely to produce dramatic shifts in the therapeutic landscape. To address the rapid advances in immunotherapy options for patients with aRCC, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) reconvened its Cancer Immunotherapy Guidelines (CIG) Renal Cell Carcinoma Subcommittee and tasked it with generating updated consensus recommendations for the treatment of patients with this disease.

Cutaneous Melanoma, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cutaneous melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies and BRAF-targeted therapy. This article summarizes the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy as adjuvant treatment of resected disease and as treatment of unresectable or distant metastatic disease.

Inositol hexaphosphate plus inositol induced complete remission in stage IV melanoma: a case report.

Inositol hexaphosphate (IP6) also called phytic acid is a polyphosphorylated carbohydrate naturally found in cereals, nuts, grains, and high-fiber-containing foods. It has been shown to inhibit the growth of many different tumor cell lines both in vitro and in vivo like colon, pancreas, liver, prostate, and even melanoma. Vitamin B inositol is a precursor of IP6 and another naturally occurring compound with anticancer properties. We present a case report of a patient with metastatic melanoma who declined traditional therapy and opted to try over the counter supplement IP6+inositol instead. To our surprise, the patient achieved a complete remission and remains in remission 3 years later. On the basis of this case and previous preclinical studies, we believe further research is indicated in exploring antiproliferative and potential immune stimulating effects of IP6+inositol in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Patient and Oncology Nurse Preferences for the Treatment Options in Advanced Melanoma: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the perceptions of patients and oncology nurses about the relative importance of benefits and risks associated with newer treatments of advanced melanoma can help to inform clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to quantify and compare the views of patients and oncology nurses regarding the importance of attributes of treatments of advanced melanoma. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in US-based oncology nurses and patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma. Patients and nurses were enlisted through online panels. In a series of scenarios, respondents had to choose between 2 hypothetical treatments, each with 7 attributes: mode of administration (MoA), dosing schedule (DS), median duration of therapy (DoT), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs). Hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression models were used to estimate preference weights. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients with advanced melanoma and 150 oncology nurses participated. The relative importance estimates of attributes by patients and nurses, respectively, were as follows: OS, 33% and 28%; AEs, 29% and 26%; ORR, 25% and 27%; PFS, 12% and 15%; DS, 2% and 3%; DoT, 0% and 0%; and MoA, 0% and 0%. CONCLUSION: Both patients and oncology nurses valued OS, ORR, and AEs as the most important treatment attributes for advanced melanoma, followed by PFS, whereas DS, DoT, and MoA were given less value in their treatment decisions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology nurses and patients have similar views on important treatment considerations for advanced melanoma, which can help build trust in shared decision-making.

Factors associated with immunotherapy selection in patients with advanced melanoma.

AIM: To explore factors associated with pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) versus ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) selection in advanced melanoma. MATERIALS & METHODS: Total of 12 academic and satellite clinics contributed to this study. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore associations between clinical characteristics and treatment choice.  Results: Total of 400 patients were included: 200 PEMBRO and 200 IPI+NIVO. Patients were significantly more likely to receive PEMBRO versus IPI+NIVO if they had poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, 2-4 versus 0-1 (odds ratio [OR]: 6.6; 95% CI: 3.0-14.7), if they were PD-L1 positive (OR: 4.5; 95% CI: 1.9-10.4) or had BRAF wild-type tumor (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.4-3.6). CONCLUSION: Patient factors are significantly associated with treatment selection in advanced melanoma. Outcomes comparisons should take this into consideration.

Adjuvant Antiangiogenic Agents in Post-nephrectomy Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The role of antiangiogenic agents in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is well established. However, it is still not clear whether this benefit can be extrapolated to the adjuvant setting. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of antiangiogenic agents in patients with RCC and a high risk of relapse after nephrectomy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of any oral antiangiogenic agent compared to placebo in post-nephrectomy RCC patients. Prespecified data elements were extracted from each trial. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Three RCTs comparing antiangiogenics to placebo among 3693 patients met our inclusion criteria and were used in meta-analyses. Overall, antiangiogenics did not improve DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.07) or OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.25). These results persisted when restricting the analysis to patients with clear cell carcinoma and patients with highest risk of relapse. Similarly, sunitinib did not show any improvement in the entire cohort for either DFS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.19) or OS (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90-1.37). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, antiangiogenics did not improve OS and DFS over placebo in high-risk RCC after nephrectomy. Further studies are needed to identify the patient population that might derive a benefit from antiangiogenics in the adjuvant setting. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this article, we found that there is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of oral antiangiogenics in nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy. In addition, the use of oral antiangiogenics was associated with a 2.7-fold higher rate of significant side effects compared to placebo.