Development and Independent Validation of a Prognostic Gene Expression Signature Based on RB1, PTEN, and TP53 in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with docetaxel (D) and/or antiandrogen receptor therapies (ARTs) are the standard therapies in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Alterations in the tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) RB1, PTEN, and TP53 are associated with an aggressive evolution and treatment resistance in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical implications of TSG mRNA expression in mHSPC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a multicenter retrospective biomarker study in mHSPC patients. TSGlow status was defined when two or more out of the three TSGs presented low RNA expression by nCounter in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples and TSGwt for the remaining cases. The microarray data from the CHAARTED trial were analyzed as an independent validation cohort. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Molecular data were correlated with CRPC-free survival (CRPC-FS) and overall survival (OS) by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 226 patients were included, of whom 218 were eligible: 93 were treated with ADT and 125 with ADT + D; 75.7% presented de novo stage IV and 67.9% high-volume disease. TSGlow (19.2%) was independently correlated with shorter CRPC-FS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.8, p = 0.002) and OS (HR 2, p = 0.002). In the CHAARTED trial, TSGlow was independently correlated with lower CRPC-FS (HR 2.2, p = 0.02); no differences in clinical outcomes according to treatment were observed in TSGlow patients, while a significant benefit was observed for ADT + D in the TSGwt group for CRPC-FS (HR 0.4, p < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.4, p = 0.001). However, no interaction was observed between TSG signature and treatment in either series. Study limitations are the retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of inclusion of patients treated with ADT + ART. CONCLUSIONS: TSGlow expression correlates with adverse outcomes in patients with mHSPC. The investigation of new therapeutic strategies in these patients is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: The low RNA expression of tumor suppressor genes in the tumors is correlated with adverse outcomes in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

Hepatic levels of S-adenosylmethionine regulate the adaptive response to fasting.

There has been an intense focus to uncover the molecular mechanisms by which fasting triggers the adaptive cellular responses in the major organs of the body. Here, we show that in mice, hepatic S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe)-the principal methyl donor-acts as a metabolic sensor of nutrition to fine-tune the catabolic-fasting response by modulating phosphatidylethanolamine N-methyltransferase (PEMT) activity, endoplasmic reticulum-mitochondria contacts, ß-oxidation, and ATP production in the liver, together with FGF21-mediated lipolysis and thermogenesis in adipose tissues. Notably, we show that glucagon induces the expression of the hepatic SAMe-synthesizing enzyme methionine adenosyltransferase α1 (MAT1A), which translocates to mitochondria-associated membranes. This leads to the production of this metabolite at these sites, which acts as a brake to prevent excessive ß-oxidation and mitochondrial ATP synthesis and thereby endoplasmic reticulum stress and liver injury. This work provides important insights into the previously undescribed function of SAMe as a new arm of the metabolic adaptation to fasting.

A pan-cancer clinical platform to predict immunotherapy outcomes and prioritize immuno-oncology combinations in early-phase trials.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is effective, but current biomarkers for patient selection have proven modest sensitivity. Here, we developed VIGex, an optimized gene signature based on the expression level of 12 genes involved in immune response with RNA sequencing. METHODS: We implemented VIGex using the nCounter platform (Nanostring) on a large clinical cohort encompassing 909 tumor samples across 45 tumor types. VIGex was developed as a continuous variable, with cutoffs selected to detect three main categories (hot, intermediate-cold and cold) based on the different inflammatory status of the tumor microenvironment. FINDINGS: Hot tumors had the highest VIGex scores and exhibited an increased abundance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes as compared with the intermediate-cold and cold. VIGex scores varied depending on tumor origin and anatomic site of metastases, with liver metastases showing an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. The predictive power of VIGex-Hot was observed in a cohort of 98 refractory solid tumor from patients treated in early-phase immunotherapy trials and its clinical performance was confirmed through an extensive metanalysis across 13 clinically annotated gene expression datasets from 877 patients treated with immunotherapy agents. Last, we generated a pan-cancer biomarker platform that integrates VIGex categories with the expression levels of immunotherapy targets under development in early-phase clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the clinical utility of VIGex as a tool to aid clinicians for patient selection and personalized immunotherapy interventions. FUNDING: BBVA Foundation; 202-2021 Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology Fellowship award; Princess Margaret Cancer Center.

Vivencias y expectativas de la mujer rural frente al parto institucional / Experiences and Expectations of Rural Women Faced with Institutional Childbirth / Vivências e Expectativas de Mulheres Rurais Diante do Parto Institucional

El parto institucional es un proceso complejo, sobre todo desde la experiencia vivida de las madres de la zona rural de Perú. Objetivo. Develar las vivencias y expectativas de la mujer rural en el parto institucional en un hospital de Cajamarca. Metodología. Estudio con enfoque cualitativo con diseño fenomenológico. Se aplicó como técnica de recolección de datos la entrevista a profundidad, como instrumento se usó una guía de preguntas orientadoras relacionada con ¿cuáles son las vivencias y expectativas de la mujer rural frente al parto institucional en el Hospital Regional Docente de Cajamarca?, la cual ha permitido acercarse al fenómeno en estudio. Hallazgos. Se obtuvieron 5 discursos de puérperas que se atendieron el parto en este nosocomio, al momento de la recolección de datos. Los discursos fueron grabados y transcritos, procediendo a la elaboración de las unidades de significado con el respectivo análisis ideográfico y nomotético, dando origen a 52 unidades de significado, sintetizadas en 4 categorías, siendo: significado del parto para la mujer rural, necesidad de apoyo emocional y físico; el proceso del parto institucional y finalmente el nacimiento del bebé. A manera de cierre. Las vivencias y expectativas de las mujeres procedentes de la zona rural, revelan que se requiere un enfoque diferenciado en la atención de parto institucional.

Institutional childbirth is a complex process, especially from the lived experience of mothers in rural Peru. Objective. To reveal the experiences and expectations of rural women in institutional childbirth in a hospital in Cajamarca. Methodology. Qualitative study with phenomenological design. An in-depth interview was used as a data collection technique, and a guide of guiding questions related to the experiences and expectations of rural women regarding institutional childbirth in the Regional Teaching Hospital of Cajamarca was used as an instrument to approach the phenomenon under study. Findings. At the time of data collection, five speeches were obtained from puerperal women who attended childbirth in this hospital. The speeches were recorded and transcribed, proceeding to the elaboration of the units of meaning with the respective ideographic and nomothetic analysis, giving rise to 52 units of meaning, synthesized in 4 categories, being: meaning of childbirth for the rural woman, need for emotional and physical support; the process of institutional childbirth and finally the birth of the baby. By way of conclusion. The experiences and expectations of women from rural areas reveal the need for a differentiated approach to institutional childbirth care.

O parto institucional é um processo complexo, especialmente a partir da experiência vivida pelas mães na zona rural do Peru. Objetivo. Revelar as experiências e expectativas das mulheres rurais em relação ao parto institucional em um hospital de Cajamarca. Metodologia. Estudo qualitativo com desenho fenomenológico. Utilizou-se a entrevista em profundidade como técnica de coleta de dados, e um guia de perguntas orientadoras relacionadas às experiências e expectativas das mulheres rurais em relação ao parto institucional no Hospital Regional de Ensino de Cajamarca foi utilizado como instrumento, o que nos permitiu abordar o fenômeno em estudo. Resultados. No momento da coleta de dados, foram obtidos cinco discursos de mulheres no pós-parto que haviam dado à luz nesse hospital. Os discursos foram gravados e transcritos, procedendo-se à elaboração das unidades de significado com a respectiva análise ideográfica e nomotética, dando origem a 52 unidades de significado, sintetizadas em 4 categorias, sendo elas: significado do parto para a mulher rural, necessidade de apoio emocional e físico; o processo de parto institucional e, finalmente, o nascimento do bebê. À guisa de conclusão. As experiências e expectativas das mulheres das áreas rurais revelam a necessidade de uma abordagem diferenciada para a assistência ao parto institucional.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-B61): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy-based combinations including pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib are the standard of care for patients with first-line clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, but these combinations are not well characterised in non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: KEYNOTE-B61 is a single-arm, phase 2 trial being conducted at 48 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, South Korea, Russia, Spain, Türkiye, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated stage IV non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher were eligible for enrolment. All enrolled patients received pembrolizumab 400 mg intravenously every 6 weeks for up to 18 cycles (2 years) plus lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal; lenvatinib could be continued beyond 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response as per adjusted Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) assessed by independent central review. Activity and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment (the as-treated population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04704219) and is no longer recruiting participants but is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2021, and Jan 21, 2022, 215 patients were screened; 158 were enrolled and received treatment. Median age at baseline was 60 years (IQR 52-69), 112 (71%) of 158 patients were male, 46 (29%) were female, 128 (81%) were White, 12 (8%) were Asian, three (2%) were Black or African American, and 15 (9%) were missing data on race. As of data cutoff (Nov 7, 2022), median study follow-up was 14·9 months (IQR 11·1-17·4). 78 of 158 patients had a confirmed objective response (49%; 95% CI 41-57), including nine (6%) patients with a confirmed complete response and 69 (44%) with a confirmed partial response. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 81 (51%) of 158 patients, the most common of which were hypertension (37 [23%] of 158), proteinuria (seven [4%]), and stomatitis (six [4%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 31 (20%) of 158 patients. Eight (5%) patients died due to adverse events, none of which was considered related to the treatment by the investigators (one each of cardiac failure, peritonitis, pneumonia, sepsis, cerebrovascular accident, suicide, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has durable antitumour activity in patients with previously untreated advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that of previous studies. Results from KEYNOTE-B61 support the use of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for these patients. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme (a subsidiary of Merck & Co, NJ, USA), and Eisai.

Selective HIF2A Inhibitors in the Management of Clear Cell Renal Cancer and Von Hippel-Lindau-Disease-Associated Tumors.

Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) loss is the hallmark event characterizing the clear cell renal cancer subtype (ccRCC). Carriers of germinal VHL mutations have an increased prevalence of kidney cysts and ccRCC as well as hemangioblastoma, pheochromocytoma and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. In both sporadic and inherited ccRCC, the primary mechanism of VHL-mediated carcinogenesis is the abnormal stabilization of hypoxia-inducible factors (HIF1A and HIF2A). While HIF1A acts as a tumor suppressor and is frequently lost through inactivating mutations/14q chromosome deletions, HIF2A acts as an oncogene promoting the expression of its target genes (VEGF, PDGF, CAIX Oct4, among others). Selective HIF2a inhibitors block the heterodimerization between HIF2A and ARNT, stopping HIF2A-induced transcription. Several HIF2A inhibitors have entered clinical trials, where they have shown a favorable toxicity profile, characterized by anemia, fatigue and edema and promising activity in heavily pretreated ccRCC patients. Belzutifan, a second-generation HIF2a inhibitor, was the first to receive FDA approval for the treatment of unresectable ccRCC in VHL syndrome. In this review, we recapitulate the rationale for HIF2a blockade in ccRCC, summarize the development of HIF2a inhibitors from preclinical models up to its introduction to the clinic with emphasis on Belzutifan, and discuss their role in VHL disease management.

Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib monotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma after progression with previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment (CONTACT-03): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are the standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, yet optimised treatment of patients whose disease progresses after these therapies is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine whether adding atezolizumab to cabozantinib delayed disease progression and prolonged survival in patients with disease progression on or after previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. METHODS: CONTACT-03 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, done in 135 study sites in 15 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed with immune checkpoint inhibitors were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus cabozantinib (60 mg orally once daily) or cabozantinib alone. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-response or web-response system in permuted blocks (block size four) and stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group, line of previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and renal cell carcinoma histology. The two primary endpoints were progression-free survival per blinded independent central review and overall survival. The primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04338269, and is closed to further accrual. FINDINGS: From July 28, 2020, to Dec 27, 2021, 692 patients were screened for eligibility, 522 of whom were assigned to receive atezolizumab-cabozantinib (263 patients) or cabozantinib (259 patients). 401 (77%) patients were male and 121 (23%) patients were female. At data cutoff (Jan 3, 2023), median follow-up was 15·2 months (IQR 10·7-19·3). 171 (65%) patients receiving atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 166 (64%) patients receiving cabozantinib had disease progression per central review or died. Median progression-free survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·8-12·3) with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 10·8 months (10·0-12·5) with cabozantinib (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death 1·03 [95% CI 0·83-1·28]; p=0·78). 89 (34%) patients in the atezolizumab-cabozantinib group and 87 (34%) in the cabozantinib group died. Median overall survival was 25·7 months (95% CI 21·5-not evaluable) with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and was not evaluable (21·1-not evaluable) with cabozantinib (HR for death 0·94 [95% CI 0·70-1·27]; p=0·69). Serious adverse events occurred in 126 (48%) of 262 patients treated with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 84 (33%) of 256 patients treated with cabozantinib; adverse events leading to death occurred in 17 (6%) patients in the atezolizumab-cabozantinib group and nine (4%) in the cabozantinib group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of atezolizumab to cabozantinib did not improve clinical outcomes and led to increased toxicity. These results should discourage sequential use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with renal cell carcinoma outside of clinical trials. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Exelixis.

Prevalence of immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy in advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma following immune-checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the prevalence of immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy in advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma following immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treatment. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with ICIs in four Spanish institutions. irAEs were classified using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (CTCAE) v.5.0 guidelines. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Other endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). irAEs were evaluated as a time-dependent covariate to avoid immortal time bias. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were treated with ICIs between May 2013 and May 2019, 105 (92%) of whom received ICIs as monotherapy. irAEs of any grade were experienced in 56 (49%) patients and 21 (18%) patients had grade ≥ 3 toxicity. The most frequent irAEs were gastrointestinal and dermatological toxicities, reported in 25 (22%) and 20 (17%) patients, respectively. Patients with grade 1-2 irAEs had significantly longer OS compared to those without grade 1-2 irAEs (median 18.2 vs. 8.7 months, HR = 0.61 [95% CI 0.39-0.95], p = 0.03). No association with efficacy was observed for patients with grade ≥ 3 irAEs. No difference in PFS was observed after adjusting for the immortal time bias. ORR was higher in patients who developed irAEs (48% vs 17%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that development of irAEs was associated with higher ORR, and patients who developed grade 1-2 irAEs had longer OS. Prospective studies are necessary to confirm our findings.

Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS: Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.).

A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

Phase II Study Investigating the Safety and Efficacy of Savolitinib and Durvalumab in Metastatic Papillary Renal Cancer (CALYPSO).

PURPOSE: Metastatic papillary renal cancer (PRC) has poor outcomes, and new treatments are required. There is a strong rationale for investigating mesenchymal epithelial transition receptor (MET) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition in this disease. In this study, the combination of savolitinib (MET inhibitor) and durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) is investigated. METHODS: This single-arm phase II trial explored durvalumab (1,500 mg once every four weeks) and savolitinib (600 mg once daily; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02819596). Treatment-naïve or previously treated patients with metastatic PRC were included. A confirmed response rate (cRR) of > 50% was the primary end point. Progression-free survival, tolerability, and overall survival were secondary end points. Biomarkers were explored from archived tissue (MET-driven status). RESULTS: Forty-one patients treated with advanced PRC were enrolled into this study and received at least one dose of study treatment. The majority of patients had Heng intermediate risk score (n = 26 [63%]). The cRR was 29% (n = 12; 95% CI, 16 to 46), and the trial therefore missed the primary end point. The cRR increased to 53% (95% CI, 28 to 77) in MET-driven patients (n/N = 9/27) and was 33% (95% CI, 17 to 54) in PD-L1-positive tumors (n/N = 9/27). The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 10.0) in the treated population and 12.0 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 19.4) in MET-driven patients. The median overall survival was 14.1 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 30.7) in the treated population and 27.4 months (95% CI, 9.3 to not reached [NR]) in MET-driven patients. Grade 3 and above treatment related adverse events occurred in 17 (41%) patients. There was 1 grade 5 treatment-related adverse event (cerebral infarction). CONCLUSION: The combination of savolitinib and durvalumab was tolerable and associated with high cRRs in the exploratory MET-driven subset.

LITESPARK-011: belzutifan plus lenvatinib vs cabozantinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma after anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy.

The first-in-class, small molecule HIF-2α inhibitor, belzutifan, has demonstrated promising antitumor activity in previously treated patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). HIF-2α also regulates VEGF expression and is involved in resistance to anti-VEGF therapy. This study describes the rationale and design for a randomized, phase III study evaluating efficacy and safety of belzutifan plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) lenvatinib versus the TKI cabozantinib in patients with advanced RCC progressing after anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in the first- or second-line setting or as adjuvant therapy. Considering the unmet need for effective and tolerable treatment of advanced RCC following immune checkpoint inhibitors, belzutifan plus lenvatinib may have a positive benefit/risk profile. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04586231 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Outcomes for International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Prognostic Groups in Contemporary First-line Combination Therapies for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of immuno-oncology (IO) agents ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) and vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapies (VEGF-TT) combined with IO (IO-VEGF) are current standard of care first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). OBJECTIVE: To establish real-world clinical benchmarks for IO combination therapies based on the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mRCC who received first-line IPI-NIVO, IO-VEGF, or VEGF-TT from 2002 to 2021 were identified using the IMDC database and stratified according to IMDC risk groups. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and treatment duration (TD) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between IMDC risk groups within each treatment cohort by the log-rank test. The overall response rate (ORR) was calculated by physician assessment of the best overall response. The primary outcome was OS at 18 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 728 patients received IPI-NIVO, 282 IO-VEGF, and 7163 VEGF-TT. The median follow-up times for patients remaining alive were 14.3 mo for IPI-NIVO, 14.9 mo IO-VEGF, and 34.4 mo for VEGF-TT. OS at 18 mo for favorable, intermediate, and poor risk was, respectively, 90%, 78%, and 50% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 93%, 83%, and 74% for IO-VEGF; and 84%, 64%, and 28% for VEGF-TT. ORRs in favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups were 41.3%, 40.6%, and 33.0% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 60.3%, 56.8%, and 40.9% for IO-VEGF; and 39.3%, 33.5%, and 20.9% for VEGF-TT, respectively. The IMDC model stratified patients into statistically distinct risk groups for the three endpoints of OS, TTNT, and TD within each treatment cohort. Limitations of this study were the retrospective design and short follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the IMDC model continues to risk stratify patients with mRCC treated with contemporary first-line IO combination therapies and provided real-world survival benchmarks. PATIENT SUMMARY: The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model continues to stratify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving modern combination treatments in the real-world setting.

Real-world Practice Patterns and Safety of Concurrent Radiotherapy and Cabozantinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on the safety of cabozantinib use in combination with radiotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To report the practice patterns, safety, and efficacy of cabozantinib with radiotherapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An international multicenter retrospective study was conducted. Patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib at any line of therapy and who received radiotherapy between 30 d prior to the start date of cabozantinib and 30 d following discontinuation of cabozantinib, from 2014 to 2020, were included. Concurrent use was defined as the use of cabozantinib on radiotherapy treatment days during any course of radiotherapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes of interest were the rate of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurring within 90 d of receipt of radiotherapy. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization rate and patterns of cabozantinib and radiotherapy use. Baseline characteristics and AEs were presented descriptively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 127 consecutive patients were included. Most patients had clear cell histology (88%), had International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk disease (57%), and had received at least one prior line of therapy (93%). Of 127 patients, 67 (53%) received concurrent cabozantinib with radiotherapy, while the remaining held cabozantinib on radiotherapy days. Overall, grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 6.3% (n = 8/127) of patients. No grade 5 events were observed. In patients treated with conventional palliative radiotherapy (n = 88), the rate of grade 3-4 AEs in those who had concurrent versus those who had nonconcurrent cabozantinib was 6.3% (n = 3/48) versus 5.0% (n = 2/40). No patient was hospitalized due to radiotherapy-related toxicity. In patients treated with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR; n = 50), the rate of grade 3-4 AEs in those who had concurrent versus those who had nonconcurrent cabozantinib was 3.6% (n = 1/28) versus 9.1% (n = 2/22). One patient in the nonconcurrent group was hospitalized due to muscle weakness suspected to be related to associated vasogenic edema 19 d after SABR for multiple brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study of patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib, 53% of patients received radiotherapy concurrently, with few grade 3-4 AEs reported within 90 d of receiving radiotherapy. The use of radiotherapy and cabozantinib requires a risk-benefit assessment of patient and disease characteristics to optimize therapy regimens. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study reports the real-world experience of using radiotherapy in patients receiving cabozantinib for metastatic kidney cancer. Over half of the patients continued taking cabozantinib while receiving radiotherapy, and few patients developed serious side effects. The combined use of radiotherapy and cabozantinib requires a careful risk-benefit assessment to achieve optimal treatment outcomes.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

Update in collecting duct carcinoma: Current aspects of the clinical and molecular characterization of an orphan disease.

Collecting duct renal cell carcinoma (cdRCC), which until recently was thought to arise from the collecting ducts of Bellini in the renal medulla, is a rare and aggressive type of non-clear renal cell carcinoma (ncRCC), accounting for 1% of all renal tumors and with nearly 50% of patients being diagnosed with Stage IV disease. The median overall survival in this setting is less than 12 months. Several regimens of chemotherapies had been used based on morphologic and cytogenetic similarities with urothelial cell carcinoma described previously, although the prognosis still remains poor. The use of targeted therapies also did not result in favorable outcomes. Recent works using NGS have highlighted genomic alterations in SETD2, CDKN2A, SMARCB1, and NF2. Moreover, transcriptomic studies have confirmed the differences between urothelial carcinoma and cdRCC, the possible true origin of this disease in the distal convoluted tubule (DCT), differentiating from other RCC (e.g., clear cell and papillary) that derive from the proximal convoluted tubule (PCT), and enrichment in immune cells that may harbor insights in novel treatment strategies with immunotherapy and target agents. In this review, we update the current aspects of the clinical, molecular characterization, and new targeted therapeutic options for Collecting duct carcinoma and highlight the future perspectives of treatment in this setting.

Adjuvant atezolizumab versus placebo for patients with renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence following resection (IMmotion010): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for locoregional renal cell carcinoma is surgery, but many patients experience recurrence. The objective of the current study was to determine if adjuvant atezolizumab (vs placebo) delayed recurrence in patients with an increased risk of recurrence after resection. METHODS: IMmotion010 is a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial conducted in 215 centres in 28 countries. Eligible patients were patients aged 18 years or older with renal cell carcinoma with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component and increased risk of recurrence. After nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo (both intravenous) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice-web response system. Stratification factors were disease stage (T2 or T3a vs T3b-c or T4 or N+ vs M1 no evidence of disease), geographical region (north America [excluding Mexico] vs rest of the world), and PD-L1 status on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (<1% vs ≥1% expression). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who were randomised, regardless of whether study treatment was received. The safety-evaluable population included all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received any amount of study drug (ie, atezolizumab or placebo), regardless of whether a full or partial dose was received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03024996, and is closed to further accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 3, 2017, and Feb 15, 2019, 778 patients were enrolled; 390 (50%) were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 388 (50%) to the placebo group. At data cutoff (May 3, 2022), the median follow-up duration was 44·7 months (IQR 39·1-51·0). Median investigator-assessed disease-free survival was 57·2 months (95% CI 44·6 to not evaluable) with atezolizumab and 49·5 months (47·4 to not evaluable) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·93, 95% CI 0·75-1·15, p=0·50). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (seven [2%] patients who received atezolizumab vs 15 [4%] patients who received placebo), hyperglycaemia (ten [3%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (two [1%] vs seven [2%]). 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo had a serious adverse event. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy after resection for patients with renal cell carcinoma with increased risk of recurrence showed no evidence of improved clinical outcomes versus placebo. These study results do not support adjuvant atezolizumab for treatment of renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, a member of the Roche group.