Impact of teratoma on survival probabilities of patients with metastatic non-seminomatous germ cell cancer: Results from the IGCCCG Update Consortium.

AIMS: To resolve the ongoing controversy surrounding the impact of teratoma (TER) in the primary among patients with metastatic testicular non-seminomatous germ-cell tumours (NSGCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) Update Consortium database, we compared the survival probabilities of patients with metastatic testicular GCT with TER (TER) or without TER (NTER) in their primaries corrected for known prognostic factors. Progression-free survival (5y-PFS) and overall survival at 5 years (5y-OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Among 6792 patients with metastatic testicular NSGCT, 3224 (47%) had TER in their primary, and 3568 (53%) did not. In the IGCCCG good prognosis group, the 5y-PFS was 87.8% in TER versus 92.0% in NTER patients (p = 0.0001), the respective 5y-OS were 94.5% versus 96.5% (p = 0.0032). The corresponding figures in the intermediate prognosis group were 5y-PFS 76.9% versus 81.6% (p = 0.0432) in TER and NTER and 5y-OS 90.4% versus 90.9% (p = 0.8514), respectively. In the poor prognosis group, there was no difference, neither in 5y-PFS [54.3% in TER patients versus 55.4% (p = 0.7472) in NTER], nor in 5y-OS [69.4% versus 67.7% (p = 0.3841)]. NSGCT patients with TER had more residual masses (65.3% versus 51.7%, p < 0.0001), and therefore received post-chemotherapy surgery more frequently than NTER patients (46.8% versus 32.0%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Teratoma in the primary tumour of patients with metastatic NSGCT negatively impacts on survival in the good and intermediate, but not in the poor IGCCCG prognostic groups.

Impact of smoking status on clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor-based regimens.

BACKGROUND: Current tobacco smoking is independently associated with decreased overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with targeted monotherapy (VEGF-TKI). Herein, we assess the influence of smoking status on the outcomes of patients with mRCC treated with the current first-line standard of care of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Real-world data from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were collected retrospectively. Patients with mRCC who received either dual ICI therapy or ICI with VEGF-TKI in the first-line setting were included and were categorized as current, former, or nonsmokers. The primary outcomes were OS, time to treatment failure (TTF), and objective response rate (ORR). OS and TTF were compared between groups using the log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression models. ORR was assessed between the 3 groups using a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 989 eligible patients were included in the analysis, with 438 (44.3%) nonsmokers, 415 (42%) former, and 136 (13.7%) current smokers. Former smokers were older and included more males, while other baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Median follow-up for OS was 21.2 months. In the univariate analysis, a significant difference between groups was observed for OS (P = .027) but not for TTF (P = .9), with current smokers having the worse 2-year OS rate (62.8% vs 70.8% and 73.1% in never and former smokers, respectively). After adjusting for potential confounders, no significant differences in OS or TTF were observed among the 3 groups. However, former smokers demonstrated a higher ORR compared to never smokers (OR 1.45, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Smoking status does not appear to independently influence the clinical outcomes to first-line ICI-based regimens in patients with mRCC. Nonetheless, patient counseling on tobacco cessation remains a crucial aspect of managing patients with mRCC, as it significantly reduces all-cause mortality.

Immune-Related Adverse Events and Survival Among Patients With Metastatic NSCLC Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Importance: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) secondary to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy reportedly improve overall survival (OS) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, studies have been small and the association between irAE severity and OS remains poorly defined. Objective: To examine the association between irAEs and their severity with OS in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC receiving ICIs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective observational cohort study included patients with NSCLC receiving ICIs between March 1, 2014, and November 30, 2021, with follow-up until March 31, 2023. Data analysis was completed April 26, 2023. The Alberta Immunotherapy Database, a provincial, multicenter cohort, was used to capture data from patients receiving ICIs in Alberta, Canada. Participants included 803 patients 18 years or older who received at least 1 cycle of ICI (alone or with chemotherapy), agnostic to treatment line. Exposure: Developing an irAE mandating delay or discontinuation of ICI therapy and/or systematic corticosteroids for management of toxic effects (hereinafter referred to as clinically meaningful irAEs). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was association between irAEs and OS according to Kaplan-Meier analysis. Clinically meaningful irAEs were identified. Patients with poor prognosis (survival <3 months) who may have died prior to irAE development were excluded from OS analysis, mitigating immortal time bias. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analyses ascertained variables associated with OS. Results: Among the 803 patients included in the analysis, the median age of patients with irAEs was 69.7 (IQR, 63.1-75.2) years and the median age of those without irAEs was 67.5 (IQR, 60.4-73.3) years, with comparable sex distribution (139 of 295 men [47.1%] and 156 of 295 women [52.9%] with irAEs vs 254 of 505 men [50.3%] and 251 of 505 women [49.7%] without irAEs). Mitigating immortal time bias (n = 611), irAEs were associated with OS (median OS with irAEs, 23.7 [95% CI, 19.3-29.1] months; median OS without irAEs, 9.8 [95% CI, 8.7-11.4] months; P < .001). No OS difference was associated with treatment in hospital vs as outpatients for an irAE (median OS, 20.8 [95% CI, 11.7-30.6] vs 25.6 [95% CI, 20.1-29.8] months; P = .33). Developing irAEs remained associated with OS in the total cohort after Cox proportional hazards regression with known prognostic characteristics (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.40-0.70]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 803 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC receiving ICIs, developing a clinically meaningful irAE was associated with improved OS. This association was not compromised by hospitalization for severe toxic effects. Whether and how ICI therapy resumption after an irAE is associated with OS warrants further study.

Outcomes of Patients with Brain Metastases from Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving First-line Therapies: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

Patients with brain metastases (BrM) from renal cell carcinoma and their outcomes are not well characterized owing to frequent exclusion of this population from clinical trials. We analyzed data for patients with or without BrM using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC). A total of 389/4799 patients (8.1%) had BrM on initiation of systemic therapy. First-line immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy was associated with longer median overall survival (OS; 32.7 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-not reached) versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy (20.6 mo, 95% CI 15.7-24.5; p = 0.019), as were intensive focal therapies with stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (31.4 mo, 95% CI 22.3-37.5) versus whole-brain radiotherapy alone or no focal therapy (16.5 mo, 95% CI 10.2-21.1; p = 0.028). On multivariable analysis, IO-based regimens (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.97; p = 0.040) and stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.78; p = 0.003) were independently associated with longer OS, as was IMDC favorable or intermediate risk (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.66; p < 0.001). Intensive systemic and focal therapies were associated with better prognosis in this population. Further studies should explore the clinical effectiveness of multimodal strategies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In a large group of patients with advanced kidney cancer, we found that 8.1% had brain metastases when starting systemic therapy. Patients with brain metastases had significantly poorer prognosis than those without brain metastases. Receipt of combination immunotherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, or neurosurgery was associated with longer overall survival.

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation for relapsed metastatic germ cell tumors The Alberta experience.

INTRODUCTION: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation (HDC-ASCT) is standard therapy for metastatic germ cell tumors (mGCTs) in patients whose disease progresses during or after conventional chemotherapy. We conducted a retrospective review of HDC-ASCT in relapsed mGCT patients in the province of Alberta, Canada, over the past two decades. METHODS: Patients with mGCTs who received HDC-ASCT at two provincial cancer referral centers from 2000-2018 were identified from institutional databases. Baseline clinical and treatment characteristics were collected, as well as overall survival (OS ) and disease-free survival (DFS). Relevant prognostic variables were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were identified. The median age was 28 years (range 19-56). A majority (95%) had non-seminoma histology and testis/retroperitoneal primary (84%). Twenty patients (47%) had poor-risk disease, as per The International Germ Cell Consensus Classification (IGCCC), at start of first-line chemotherapy. HDC-ASCT was used as second-line therapy in 65% of patients, and 58% of ASCT patients received tandem transplants. Median followup after ASCT was 22 months (range 2-181). At last followup, 42% of patients were alive without disease, including 3/7 (43%) of patients with primary mediastinal disease. Two-year and five-year DFS/OS ratios were 44%/65% and 38%/45%, respectively. Median OS and DFS for all patients were 30.0 months (13.3-46.6) and 8.0 months (0.9-15.1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found that HDC-ASCT is an effective salvage therapy in mGCT, consistent with existing literature. Patients appeared to benefit regardless of primary site. Although limited by small sample size, we found a numerical difference in DFS and OS between second- and third-line HDC-ASCT and single vs. tandem ASCT.

Vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma pretreated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify evidence for use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based therapy. METHODS: This was a PRISMA-standard systematic literature review; registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255568). Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (January 28, 2021; updated September 13, 2022) to identify publications reporting efficacy/effectiveness and safety/tolerability evidence for anti-VEGF treatment in patients with RCC who had received prior CPI therapy. RESULTS: Of 2,639 publications screened, 48 were eligible and featured 2,759 patients treated in trials and 2,209 in real-world studies (RWS). Most patients with available data were treated with anti-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens (trials: 93 %; RWS: 100 %), most commonly cabozantinib, which accounted for 46 % of trial and 62 % of RWS patients in publications with available data. Collectively, there was consistent evidence of anti-VEGF treatment activity after prior CPI therapy. Activity was reported for all anti-VEGF regimens and regardless of prior CPI-based regimen. No new safety signals were detected for subsequent anti-VEGF therapy; no studies suggested increased immune-related adverse events associated with prior CPI therapy. The results were limited by data quality; study heterogeneity prohibited meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Based on the available data (most commonly for cabozantinib), anti-VEGF therapy appears to be a rational treatment choice in patients with RCC who have progressed despite prior CPI-based therapy. Results from ongoing trials of combination anti-VEGF plus CPI regimen post prior CPI therapy trials will contribute more definitive evidence. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Anticancer treatments that work by reducing levels of a substance in the body called Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor are known as anti-VEGF drugs. Reducing VEGF levels helps to reduce blood supply to tumors, which can slow the speed at which the cancer grows. Some other types of anticancer drugs that help the immune system to fight cancer cells are called checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we looked at published studies that investigated how anti-VEGF drugs work, and what side effects they cause, in people who have already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors for a type of kidney cancer called renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to summarize the available evidence to help doctors decide how best to use anti-VEGF drugs in these patients. We found 48 studies that included almost 5,000 patients. The results of the studies showed that anti-VEGF drugs have anticancer effects in people with renal cell carcinoma who had already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors. All of the VEGF-targeting drugs had anticancer effects, irrespective of what checkpoint inhibitor treatment people had received before. There were different amounts of evidence available for the different anti-VEGF drugs. The anti-VEGF cabozantinib had the largest amount of evidence. Importantly, previous checkpoint inhibitor treatment did not seem to affect the number or type of side-effects associated with anti-VEGF drugs. Results from ongoing, well-designed studies will be helpful to confirm these results. Our findings may be useful for doctors considering using anti-VEGF drugs in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have received checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

Real-world Assessment of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma with or Without Sarcomatoid Features Treated with First-line Systemic Therapies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients have been reported to have better outcomes when treated with immunotherapies (IO) compared to targeted therapies (TT). This study aims to evaluate the impact of first-line systemic therapies on survival of mRCC patients with or without sarcomatoid features using real-world data. METHODS: Metastatic RCC patients of International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate or high risk, diagnosed from January 2011 to December 2022, treated with first-line systemic therapies, and with histological documentation of the presence or absence of sarcomatoid features in nephrectomy specimens were identified using the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system. Patients were classified by initial treatment: (1) targeted therapy (TT) used alone or (2) immunotherapy (IO)-based systemic therapies used in combination of either IO-IO or IO-TT. The inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores was used to balance for covariates. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the impact of initial treatment received on overall survival (OS). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 1202 eligible patients, 791 were treated with TT and 411 with IO combinations. Of the patients, 76% were male, and the majority (91%) had a nephrectomy before systemic therapy. In nonsarcomatoid patients (639 TT and 320 IO patients), treatment with IO was associated with improved OS compared with patients treated with TT (median of 72 vs 48 mo, hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.80, objective response rate [ORR] of 38.5% for IO and 23.5% for TT). In sarcomatoid patients (152 TT and 91 IO patients), treatment with IO was associated with improved OS (median of 48 vs 18 mo, HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26-0.64, ORR of 49.5% for IO and 13.8% for TT). Similar results were observed in patients with synchronous metastatic disease only. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: IO treatment was associated with improved survival in mRCC patients. The magnitude of benefit is increased in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC, consequently, identifying the sarcomatoid status early on could help healthcare providers make a better treatment decision. PATIENT SUMMARY: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients of International mRCC Database Consortium intermediate and high risk, diagnosed from January 2011 to December 2022, treated with first-line systemic therapies, and with histological documentation of the presence or absence of sarcomatoid features in nephrectomy specimens were identified using the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis). In this study, treatment with immunotherapy was associated to an improved survival and response rates for mRCC patients with and without sarcomatoid features. The magnitude of benefit is increased in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC.

Characterization of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Deferred, Upfront, or No Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in the Era of Combination Immunotherapy: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has not yet been well characterized in the era of combination immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate characteristics and outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who received immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy according to CN status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), patients with mRCC who received frontline IO-based combinations were included. Upfront CN was defined as CN up to 3 mo before diagnosis of metastatic disease but before systemic therapy initiation. Deferred CN was defined as CN after systemic therapy initiation. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) from initiation of systemic therapy was estimated via Cox proportional-hazards regression. A 12-mo landmark time and a time-varying covariate for CN status were used to mitigate potential bias. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 385 patients eligible for landmark analysis, 24, 182, and 179 underwent deferred CN, upfront CN, and no CN, respectively. Patients in the no CN subgroup were older (63 yr vs 57 yr in the deferred CN subgroup and 60 yr in the upfront CN subgroup; p = 0.001) and a higher proportion had bone metastases (44% vs 26% in the deferred CN subgroup and 23% in the upfront CN subgroup; p < 0.001). A lower proportion of patients in the upfront CN subgroup had IMDC poor risk (23% vs 43% in the no CN subgroup and 47% in the deferred CN subgroup; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, CN receipt was an independent favorable prognostic factor (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.78; p = 0.005). The study is limited by the lack of randomization and its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Despite changes in practice patterns with the advent of novel therapeutic agents, CN may still serve as an effective surgical intervention in carefully selected patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with metastatic kidney cancer, surgery to remove the primary tumor was traditionally the treatment of choice, but immunotherapy drugs are now another option for these patients. We analyzed data for contemporary patients with metastatic kidney cancer who received combination immunotherapy as their first treatment. We found that in selected patients receiving immunotherapy, surgery to remove the primary tumor as well can result in better prognosis.

Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor with Anti-PD-1 Monotherapy or in Combination with Ipilimumab in Younger versus Older Adults with Advanced Melanoma.

Background: The majority of melanoma is diagnosed in individuals between 55 and 84 years old. Current data varied in reporting differences in survival outcomes amongst different age groups. Methods: A retrospective, multi-center, provincial cohort database was used to investigate the relationship between age (<65 or ≥65 years old) and overall survival. Patients must have had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic melanoma and had to have received at least one cycle of immunotherapy (single agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or combination ipilimumab plus nivolumab). Results: From August 2013 to May 2020, we identified 497 patients (median age = 64 [range 12-96 years]; 65.2% men; 36.4% with a BRAF mutation (V600E and V600K)). Of these, 260 were < 65 years old, and 237 were ≥65 years old. A total of 39.1% of the patients in the younger cohort received combination ICI compared with 10.2% in the older cohort, and the difference was statistically significant. Median survival amongst individuals aged ≥65 years old was shorter compared to individuals <65 years old, with a median overall survival of 17.1 (95% CI 12.3-22.9 months) months and 22.2 months (95% CI 18.7-33.8 months), respectively (p = 0.04), at a median follow-up of 34.4 months (range: 1.84-81.4 months). The survival difference was present in the cutaneous melanoma cohort where median OS was 18.2 months (95% CI 12.3-30.4 months) in patients ≥65 years old and 23.8 months (95% CI 19.2-48.2 months) in patients <65 years old, p = 0.04. There were no significant differences by age in the non-cutaneous melanoma cohort. A combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with an improved overall survival hazard ratio of 0.48 (95% CI 0.36-0.65) as compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy alone (p < 0.001). In the cutaneous cohort treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 306), no significant differences were seen with median OS at 16.1 months (95% CI 11.4-25.7 months) in patients ≥65 years old and 17.1 months (95% CI 12.0-22.2 months) in patients <65 years old (p = 0.84). Tumor response to anti-PD-1 was higher in the older patients compared with the response in younger patients with cutaneous melanoma. Conclusions: Older melanoma patients have similar survival compared with younger patients after receiving the same treatment with anti-PD-1 monotherapy. The superior survival observed in the younger patients is possibly related to the higher utilization of combination ICI. Tumor response to immunotherapy is superior in older patients with cutaneous melanoma; however, younger patients may improve their survival by using combination ICI.

Outcomes of relapsed clinical stage I versus de novo metastatic testicular cancer patients: an analysis of the IGCCCG Update database.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance after orchiectomy is the preferred management in clinical stage I (CSI) germ-cell tumours (GCT) associated with a 15 to 30% relapse rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the IGCCCG Update database, we compared the outcomes of gonadal disseminated GCT relapsing from initial CSI to outcomes of patients with de novo metastatic GCT. RESULTS: A total of 1014 seminoma (Sem) [298 (29.4%) relapsed from CSI, 716 (70.6%) de novo] and 3103 non-seminoma (NSem) [626 (20.2%) relapsed from CSI, 2477 (79.8%) de novo] were identified. Among Sem, no statistically significant differences in PFS and OS were found between patients relapsing from CSI and de novo metastatic disease [5-year progression-free survival (5y-PFS) 87.6% versus 88.5%; 5-year overall survival (5y-OS) 93.2% versus 96.1%). Among NSem, PFS and OS were higher overall in relapsing CSI patients (5y-PFS 84.6% versus 80.0%; 5y-OS 93.3% versus 88.7%), but there were no differences within the same IGCCCG prognostic groups (HR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.70-1.12). Relapses in the intermediate or poor prognostic groups occurred in 11/298 (4%) Sem and 112/626 (18%) NSem. CONCLUSION: Relapsing CSI GCT patients expect similar survival compared to de novo metastatic patients of the same ICCCCG prognostic group. Intermediate and poor prognosis relapses from initial CSI expose patients to unnecessary toxicity from more intensive treatments.

Prognostic Models in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

As many new systemic therapy options have recently emerged, the standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is gradually changing. The increasing complexity of treatment options requires more personalized treatment strategies. This evolution in the systemic therapy landscape comes with a need for validated stratification models that facilitate decision making and patient counseling for clinicians through a risk-adapted approach. This article summarizes the available evidence on risk stratification and prognostic models for mRCC, including the International mRCC Database Consortium and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center models, as well as their association with clinical outcomes.

Treatment-Free Survival After Nivolumab vs Pembrolizumab vs Nivolumab-Ipilimumab for Advanced Melanoma.

Importance: Treatment-free survival (TFS) represents an alternative time-to-event end point, accurately characterizing time spent free of systemic therapy, providing a more patient-centric view of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimens. There remains a lack of studies evaluating TFS outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma who are receiving immunotherapy, especially outside of the clinical trial setting. Objective: To evaluate TFS outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy outside of a clinical trial setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy between August 1, 2013, and May 31, 2020, was conducted in Alberta, Canada. Data analysis was performed in August 2022. Exposures: Patients received standard-of-care, first-line ICI therapy treatment regimens including single-agent nivolumab, single-agent pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab-nivolumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment-free survival was defined as the difference in the 36-month restricted mean survival time between 2 conventional survival end points: (1) time from treatment initiation to ICI cessation, death, or censoring at last follow-up and (2) time from treatment initiation to subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, death, or censoring at last follow-up. Results: A total of 316 patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line nivolumab (n = 51; median age, 66 years [IQR, 56-78 years]; 31 men [60.8%]), pembrolizumab (n = 158; median age, 69 years [IQR, 60-78 years]; 112 men [70.9%]), or combination nivolumab-ipilimumab (n = 107; median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-60 years]; 72 men [67.3%]) were included. Treatment groups were similar with regard to sex, primary tumor location, and presence of metastasis, although patients receiving combination nivolumab-ipilimumab had a lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, were younger, and were more likely to be BRAF V600E positive than those receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy. The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.8-16.0 months]) compared with nivolumab (8.9 months [95% CI, 4.4-13.5 months]) and pembrolizumab (11.1 months [95% CI, 8.5-13.8 months]). During the 36-month follow-up interval, patients treated with nivolumab-ipilimumab spent 34.4% of their time (12.4 of 36 months) not receiving systemic anticancer treatments compared with 30.8% (11.1 of 36 months) and 24.7% (8.9 of 36 months) of the time for the pembrolizumab and nivolumab treatment groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy suggests that TFS represents a patient-centric, informative end point. Patients treated with combination nivolumab-ipilimumab spent more time alive and free from systemic anticancer therapy than those treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy alone.

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.).

Adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma: 2023 Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum consensus statement.

INTRODUCTION: Several recent randomized trials evaluated the impact of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy on post-surgical outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), with disparate results. The objective of this consensus statement is to provide data-driven guidance regarding the use of ICIs after complete resection of clear-cell RCC in a Canadian context. METHODS: An expert panel of genitourinary medical oncologists, urologic oncologists, and radiation oncologists with expertise in RCC management was convened in a dedicated session during the 2022 Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum in Toronto, Canada. Topic statements on the management of patients after surgery for RCC, including counselling, risk stratification, indications for medical oncology referral, appropriate followup, eligibility and management for adjuvant ICIs, as well as treatment options for patients with recurrence who received adjuvant immunotherapy, were discussed. Participants were asked to vote if they agreed or disagreed with each statement. Consensus was achieved if greater than 75% of participants agreed with the topic statement. RESULTS: A total of 22 RCC experts voted on 14 statements. Consensus was achieved on all topic statements. The panel felt patients with clear-cell RCC at increased risk of recurrence after surgery, as per the Keynote-564 group definitions, should be counselled about recurrence risk by a urologist, should be informed about the potential role of adjuvant ICI systemic therapy, and be offered referral to discuss risks and benefits with a medical oncologist. The panel felt that one year of pembrolizumab is currently the only regimen that should be considered if adjuvant therapy is selected. Panelists emphasized current opinions are based on disease-free survival given the available results. Significant uncertainty regarding the benefit and harms of adjuvant therapy remains, primarily due to a lack of consistent benefit observed across similar trials of adjuvant ICI-based therapies and immature overall survival (OS) data. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus document provides guidance from Canadian RCC experts regarding the potential role of ICI-based adjuvant systemic therapy after surgery. This rapidly evolving field requires frequent evidence-based re-evaluation.

Impact of Performance Status on Survival Outcomes and Health Care Utilization in Patients With Advanced NSCLC Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Introduction: Landmark trials testing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced NSCLC are difficult to extrapolate to real-world practice given the exclusion of patients with poor (i.e., ≥2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS). We sought to evaluate the impact of ECOG PS on clinical outcomes and health care utilization in patients with NSCLC treated with ICIs in real-world practice. Methods: Patients with advanced NSCLC who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or nivolumab were retrospectively identified from the Alberta Immunotherapy Database. The primary outcome was median overall survival, as stratified by ECOG PS. Secondary outcomes included median time-to-treatment failure and metrics of health care utilization, including emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death in hospital. Results: A total of 790 patients were included, with 29.2% having poor ECOG PS at initiation of ICI. These patients had significantly lower median overall survival (3.3 versus 13.4 mo) and median time-to-treatment failure (1.4 versus 4.9 mo) compared with those with favorable ECOG PS (p < 0.0001 for both outcomes). Patients with poor ECOG PS were also more likely to present to the emergency department, be admitted to the hospital, and die in the hospital during their first admission (risk ratio = 1.6, 2.3-2.7, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with NSCLC with poor ECOG PS treated with ICI had significantly worse survival outcomes and were significantly more likely to use health care services than those with favorable ECOG PS. The large proportion of patients with poor ECOG PS further justifies the urgent need for randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of ICI in this high-risk population.

Trends in health care spending on kidney cancer in the United States, 1996-2016.

BACKGROUND: Paradigm shifts in kidney cancer management have led to higher health care spending. Here, total and per capita health care spending and primary drivers of change in health expenditures for kidney cancer in the United States between 1996 and 2016 are estimated. METHODS: Public databases developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation for the Disease Expenditure Project were used. The prevalence of kidney cancer was estimated from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Changes in health care spending on kidney cancer were assessed by joinpoint regression and expressed as annual percent changes (APCs). RESULTS: In 2016, total health care spending on kidney cancer was $3.42 billion (95% CI, $2.91 billion to $3.89 billion) compared with $1.18 billion (95% CI, $1.07 billion to $1.31 billion) in 1996. Per capita spending had two inflection points in 2005 and 2008, close to the approval years of targeted therapies, which corresponded to APCs of +2.9% (95% CI, +2.3% to +3.6%; p < .001) per year, 1996-2005; +9.2% (95% CI, +3.4% to +15.2%; p = .004) per year, 2005-2008; and +3.1% (95% CI, +2.2% to +3.9%; p < .001) per year, 2008-2016. Inpatient care was the largest contributor to health expenditures, which accounted for $1.56 billion (95% CI, $1.19 billion to $1.95 billion) in 2016. Price and intensity of care was the primary driver of increased health expenditures, whereas service utilization was the primary driver of reduced health expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence-adjusted health care spending on kidney cancer continues to rise in the United States, which is primarily attributable to inpatient care and driven by the price and intensity of care over time.

Development and Validation of a Prognostic Risk Model for Patients with Advanced Melanoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification tools for patients with advanced melanoma (AM) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are lacking. We identified a new prognostic model associated with overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 318 treatment naïve patients with AM receiving ICI were collected from a multi-centre retrospective cohort study. LASSO Cox regression identified independent prognostic factors associated with OS. Model validation was carried out on 500 iterations of bootstrapped samples. Harrel's C-index was calculated and internally validated to outline the model's discriminatory performance. External validation was carried out in 142 advanced melanoma patients receiving ICI in later lines. RESULTS: High white blood cell count (WBC), high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), low albumin, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥1, and the presence of liver metastases were included in the model. Patients were parsed into 3 risk groups: favorable (0-1 factors) OS of 52.9 months, intermediate (2-3 factors) OS 13.0 months, and poor (≥4 factors) OS 2.7 months. The C-index of the model from the discovery cohort was 0.69. External validation in later-lines (N = 142) of therapy demonstrated a c-index of 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: Liver metastases, low albumin, high LDH, high WBC, and ECOG≥1 can be combined into a prognostic model for AM patients treated with ICI.