Impact of renal cell carcinoma molecular subtypes on immunotherapy and targeted therapy outcomes.

Saliby et al. show that a machine learning approach can accurately classify clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) into distinct molecular subtypes using transcriptomic data. When applied to tumors biospecimens from the JAVELIN Renal 101 (JR101) trial, a benefit is observed with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy across all molecular subtypes.

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.

Prognostic Impact of Prostate-Specific Antigen at 6 Months After Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient Data Analysis of Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at 6 months after completion of radiotherapy (RT) in patients treated with RT alone, RT plus short-term (st; 3-6 months), and RT plus long-term (lt; 24-36 months) androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were obtained from 16 randomized trials evaluating RT ± ADT for localized prostate cancer (PCa) between 1987 and 2011. The lowest PSA recorded within 6 months after RT completion was identified and categorized as < or ≥0.1 ng/mL. The primary outcomes were metastasis-free survival (MFS), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS), from 12 months after random assignment. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent (n = 2,339/2,376) of patients allocated to RT alone, 84% (n = 4,756/5,658) allocated to RT + stADT, and 77% (n = 1,258/1,626) allocated to RT + ltADT had PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL within 6 months after completing RT. PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL was associated with lower MFS and OS and higher PCSM among patients allocated to RT ± ADT (RT - MFS: hazard ratio [HR], 2.24 [95% CI, 1.21 to 4.16]; PCSM: subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.82 [0.51 to 6.49]; OS: HR, 1.72 [0.97 to 3.05]; RT + stADT - MFS: HR, 1.27 [1.12 to 1.44]; PCSM: sHR, 2.10 [1.52 to 2.92]; OS: HR, 1.26 [1.11 to 1.44]; RT + ltADT - MFS: HR, 1.58 [1.27 to 1.96]; PCSM: sHR, 1.97 [1.11 to 3.49]; OS: HR, 1.59 [1.27 to 1.99]). Five-year MFS rates among patients allocated to RT, RT + stADT, and RT + ltADT were 91% versus 79%, 83% versus 76%, and 87% versus 74%, respectively, based on PSA < or ≥0.1 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL within 6 months after RT completion was prognostic for lt outcomes in patients treated with RT ± ADT for localized PCa. This can be used to counsel patients treated with RT ± ADT and in guiding clinical trial design evaluating novel systemic therapies with RT + ADT as well as (de)intensification strategies.

Comparison of outcomes for Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database.

BACKGROUND: Existing data on the impact of Hispanic ethnicity on outcomes for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is mixed. The authors investigated outcomes of Hispanic and non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with advanced RCC receiving systemic therapy at large academic cancer centers using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC). METHODS: Eligible patients included non-Black Hispanic and NHW patients with locally advanced or metastatic RCC initiating systemic therapy. Overall survival (OS) and time to first-line treatment failure (TTF) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of ethnicity on OS and TTF were estimated by Cox regression hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients (181 Hispanic and 1382 NHW) (mostly males [73.8%] with clear cell RCC [81.5%] treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI] monotherapy [69.9%]) were included. IMDC risk groups were similar between groups. Hispanic patients were younger at initial diagnosis (median 57 vs. 59 years, p = .015) and less likely to have greater than one metastatic site (60.8% vs. 76.8%, p < .001) or bone metastases (23.8% vs. 33.4%, p = .009). Median OS and TTF was 38.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.1-59.2) versus 35.7 months (95% CI, 31.9-39.2) and 7.8 months (95% CI, 6.2-9.0) versus 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.9-8.1), respectively, in Hispanic versus NHW patients. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.31, p = .56) or TTF (adjusted HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.26, p = .50). CONCLUSIONS: The authors did not observe statistically significant differences in OS or TTF between Hispanic and NHW patients with advanced RCC. Receiving treatment at tertiary cancer centers may mitigate observed disparities in cancer outcomes.

Postradical prostatectomy prostate-specific antigen outcomes after 6 versus 18 months of perioperative androgen-deprivation therapy in men with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer: Results of part 2 of a randomized phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer have an increased risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). The authors previously reported on part 1 of this phase 2 trial testing neoadjuvant apalutamide, abiraterone, prednisone, plus leuprolide (AAPL) or abiraterone, prednisone, and leuprolide (APL) for 6 months followed by RP. The results demonstrated favorable pathologic responses (tumor <5 mm) in 20.3% of patients (n = 24 of 118). Herein, the authors report the results of part 2. METHODS: For part 2, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either AAPL for 12 months (arm 2A) or observation (arm 2B), stratified by neoadjuvant therapy and pathologic tumor classification. The primary end point was 3-year biochemical progression-free survival. Secondary end points included safety and testosterone recovery (>200 ng/dL). RESULTS: Overall, 82 of 118 patients (69%) enrolled in part 1 were randomized to part 2. A higher proportion of patients who were not randomized to adjuvant therapy had a favorable prostatectomy pathologic response (32.3% in nonrandomized patients compared with 17.1% in randomized patients). In the intent-to-treat analysis, the 3-year biochemical progression-free survival rate was 81% for arm 2A and 72% for arm 2B (hazard ratio, 0.81; 90% confidence interval, 0.43-1.49). Of the randomized patients, 81% had testosterone recovery in the AAPL group compared with 95% in the observation group, with a median time to recovery of <12 months in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, because 30% of patients declined adjuvant treatment, part B was underpowered to detect differences between arms. Future perioperative studies should be biomarker-directed and include strategies for investigator and patient engagement to ensure compliance with protocol procedures.

Radiographic Progression-Free Survival and Clinical Progression-Free Survival as Potential Surrogates for Overall Survival in Men With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite major increases in the longevity of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), most men still die of prostate cancer. Phase III trials assessing new therapies in mHSPC with overall survival (OS) as the primary end point will take approximately a decade to complete. We investigated whether radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and clinical PFS (cPFS) are valid surrogates for OS in men with mHSPC and could potentially be used to expedite future phase III clinical trials. METHODS: We obtained individual patient data (IPD) from 9 eligible randomized trials comparing treatment regimens (different androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] strategies or ADT plus docetaxel in the control or research arms) in mHSPC. rPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to radiographic progression or death from any cause whichever occurred first; cPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of radiographic progression, symptoms, initiation of new treatment, or death, whichever occurred first. We implemented a two-stage meta-analytic validation model where conditions of patient-level and trial-level surrogacy had to be met. We then computed the surrogate threshold effect (STE). RESULTS: IPD from 6,390 patients randomly assigned from 1994 to 2012 from 13 units were pooled for a stratified analysis. The median OS, rPFS, and cPFS were 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2 to 4.5), 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.5), and 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.2 to 2.4), respectively. The STEs were 0.80 and 0.81 for rPFS and cPFS end points, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both rPFS and cPFS appear to be promising surrogate end points for OS. The STE of 0.80 or higher makes it viable for either rPFS or cPFS to be used as the primary end point that is surrogate for OS in phase III mHSPC trials with testosterone suppression alone as the backbone therapy and would expedite trial conduct.

Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after neoadjuvant therapy and radical prostatectomy for high-risk localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to describe patterns of delivery of adjuvant (aRT) and salvage RT (sRT) in patients who underwent RP after receiving neoadjuvant androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) before radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC). METHODS: Two hundred eighteen patients treated on phase 2 neoadjuvant trials between 2006 and 2018 at two academic centers were evaluated. aRT and sRT were defined as receipt of RT with a PSA of ≤0.1 or >0.1 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes were biochemical recurrence (BCR), defined as time from aRT/sRT to a PSA rising to >0.1 ng/mL, and metastasis-free survival (MFS) after RT. RESULTS: Twenty-three (11%) and 55 (25%) patients received aRT and sRT respectively. Median PSA at start of aRT and sRT was 0.01 and 0.16 ng/mL, and median duration from RP to RT was 5 and 14 months, respectively. All aRT patients had NCCN high-risk disease, 30% were pN1 and 43% had positive surgical margins; 52% had prostate bed RT. Fifty-one percent of sRT patients had biopsy Gleason 9-10, 29% were pT2 and 9% had positive surgical margins; 63% had RT to the prostate bed/pelvis. At a median follow-up of 5.3 and 3.0 years after aRT and sRT, 3-year freedom from BCR was 55% and 47%, and 3-year MFS was 56% and 53%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: aRT was infrequently used in patients who received neoadjuvant ARPI before RP for HRLPC. Outcomes of aRT and sRT were similar but generally poor. Studies evaluating intensified systemic therapy approaches with postoperative RT in this high-risk population are needed.

TERT Promoter Mutations Frequency Across Race, Sex, and Cancer Type.

BACKGROUND: Telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) gene promoter mutations have been explored, as biomarkers of improved survival for patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We sought to investigate their prevalence by race and sex across different cancer types to inform patient selection in clinical trials. RESULTS: In this observational study, 31 925 patients with cancer underwent next-generation sequencing of their tumors with 88% (27 970) patients self-reported being Whites, 7.1% (2273) Asians, and 5.3% (1682) Blacks. Examining the distribution of TERT promoter mutations by race, White patients with melanoma harbored more TERT promoter mutations than Asian and Black patients (OR = 25.83; 95%CI, 6.84-217.42; P < .001). In contrast, Asian patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) harbored more TERT promoter mutations compared to White patients (OR = 2.47; 95%CI, 1.39-4.37; P = .004). In addition, the distribution of TERT promoter mutations differed by sex. Males were enriched for TERT gene promoter mutations compared to females with melanoma (OR = 1.82; 95%CI, 1.53-2.16; P < .001), cancer of unknown primary (OR = 1.96; 95%CI, 1.43-2.69; P < .001), hepatobiliary (OR = 3.89; 95%CI, 2.65-5.69; P < .001), and thyroid cancers (OR = 1.42; 95%CI, 1.10-1.84; P = .0087), while females were more enriched for TERT promoter mutations compared to males for HNC (OR = 0.56; 95%CI, 0.39-0.81; P = .0021). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of TERT gene promoter mutations varies among patients with cancer based on race and sex. These findings inform our understanding of cancer biology and can assist in the design of future clinical trials that leverage drugs targeting TERT promoter dependencies.

Mortality Risk for Docetaxel-Treated, High-Grade Prostate Cancer With Low PSA Levels: A Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Patients with high-grade prostate cancer with low levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA; <4 ng/mL) are at high risk of mortality, necessitating an improved treatment paradigm. Objective: To assess for these patients whether adding docetaxel to standard of care (SOC) treatment is associated with decreased prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM). Data Sources: PubMed search from 2000 to 2022. Study Selection: Five prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) performed in the US, France, and the United Kingdom evaluating SOC treatment with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or with radical prostatectomy vs SOC plus docetaxel. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual data were included from patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer, a PSA level of less than 4 ng/mL, and a Gleason score of 8 to 10. Patients initiated treatment between February 21, 2006, and December 31, 2015 (median follow-up, 7.1 [IQR, 5.4-9.9] years). Data were analyzed on December 16, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratio (HR) of ACM and subdistribution HR (sHR) of PCSM adjusted for performance status (1 vs 0 or good health), Gleason score (9 or 10 vs 8), tumor category (T3-T4 vs T1-T2 or TX), and duration of ADT (2 years vs 4-6 months). Results: From a cohort of 2184 patients, 145 patients (6.6%) in 4 RCTs were eligible (median age, 63 [IQR, 46-67] years). Thirty-one patients died, and of these deaths, 22 were due to prostate cancer. Performance status was 0 for 139 patients (95.9%) and 1 for 6 patients (4.1%). A reduced but nonsignificant risk of ACM (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.24-1.09]) and PCSM (sHR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.17-1.02]) was associated with patients randomized to SOC plus docetaxel compared with SOC. The risk reduction in ACM (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.21-1.02]) was more pronounced among patients with a performance status of 0 and was significant for PCSM (sHR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.11-0.86]). Conclusions and Relevance: Adding docetaxel to SOC treatment for patients who are in otherwise good health with a PSA level of less than 4 ng/mL and a Gleason score of 8 to 10 was associated with a significant reduction in PCSM and therefore has the potential to improve prognosis.

A Pooled Analysis of 3 Phase II Trials of Salvage Nivolumab/Ipilimumab After Nivolumab in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has demonstrated improved survival for treatment-naïve advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A series of clinical trials evaluated the effect of salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients without an objective response to nivolumab. Given the size and heterogeneity of these studies, we performed a pooled analysis to better inform the activity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab after nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients included those with advanced clear cell RCC having received no prior immunotherapy. The primary objective was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator-assessment. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The analysis included 410 patients with clear cell RCC, of whom 340 (82.9%) had IMDC intermediate/poor risk disease, and 137 (33.4%) had prior treatment. The 16-18-week ORR to nivolumab prior to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 22.7% (n = 93), and best ORR to nivolumab was 25.1% (n = 103). Two hundred and thirty (56.1%) patients treated with nivolumab received nivolumab plus ipilimumab at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 9-19) after initiation of nivolumab [27.0% (n = 62) with stable disease and 73.0% (n = 168) with progressive disease to nivolumab]. The ORR to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 12.6% (n = 29). Six-month PFS on nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 37% (95% CI, 27-47). Median follow-up was 34.3 months and 3-year OS was 59% (95% CI, 53-64) from nivolumab start. CONCLUSION: A small subset of patients lacking a response to nivolumab derive benefit from salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab. When possible, both drugs should be given in concomitantly, rather in an adaptive fashion.

Risk of Short-Term Prostate-Specific Antigen Recurrence and Failure in Patients With Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A shorter time interval to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure is associated with worse clinical outcomes; however, specific factors defining this state remain unknown. Objective: To evaluate the factors of a short time interval to PSA failure in order to identify patients for treatment escalation randomized clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial was a secondary analysis of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 05-043 trial and included 350 patients with nonmetastatic unfavorable risk prostate cancer (PC). Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT) plus docetaxel vs ADT and RT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative incidence rates curves of PSA failure, defined as PSA nadir plus 2 ng/mL or initiation of salvage therapies, and the Fine and Gray competing risks regression was used to assess the prognostic association between these factors and time to PSA failure. Results: The study included 350 males who primarily had a good performance status (330 [94.3%] with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0), median (range) age of 66 (43-86) years, with 167 (46.6%) having Gleason scores of 8 to 10, and 195 (55.2%) presenting with a baseline PSA of more than 10 ng/mL. After a median (IQR) follow-up of 10.2 (8.0-11.4) years, having a PSA level of 10 ng/mL to 20 ng/mL (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.28-3.07; P = .002) and a Gleason score of 8 to 10 (sHR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.63-3.99; P < .001) were associated with a shorter time to PSA failure, and older age (sHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P = .002) was associated with reduced risk for PSA failure after adjusting for other baseline clinical factors. The high-risk category, defined by these 3 factors, was associated with a shorter time to PSA failure (sHR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.84-3.93; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of males with unfavorable risk PC, young age, PSA of 10 ng/mL or more, and a Gleason score of 8 to 10 estimated a shorter time to PSA failure. A subgroup of males at very high-risk for early PSA failure, as defined by our study, may benefit from treatment escalation with androgen receptor signaling inhibitors or cytotoxic chemotherapy and should be the subject of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Trial Registration: NCT00116142.

Circulating and Intratumoral Immune Determinants of Response to Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Variant Histology or Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of variant histology comprises approximately 20% of kidney cancer diagnoses, yet the optimal therapy for these patients and the factors that impact immunotherapy response remain largely unknown. To better understand the determinants of immunotherapy response in this population, we characterized blood- and tissue-based immune markers for patients with variant histology RCC, or any RCC histology with sarcomatoid differentiation, enrolled in a phase II clinical trial of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. Baseline circulating (plasma) inflammatory cytokines were highly correlated with one another, forming an "inflammatory module" that was increased in International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium poor-risk patients and was associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS; P = 0.028). At baseline, an elevated circulating vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) level was associated with a lack of response (P = 0.03) and worse PFS (P = 0.021). However, a larger increase in on-treatment levels of circulating VEGF-A was associated with clinical benefit (P = 0.01) and improved overall survival (P = 0.0058). Among peripheral immune cell populations, an on-treatment decrease in circulating PD-L1+ T cells was associated with improved outcomes, with a reduction in CD4+PD-L1+ [HR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-0.91; P = 0.016] and CD8+PD-L1+ T cells (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87; P = 0.009) correlated with improved PFS. Within the tumor itself, a higher percentage of terminally exhausted (PD-1+ and either TIM-3+ or LAG-3+) CD8+ T cells was associated with worse PFS (P = 0.028). Overall, these findings support the value of tumor and blood-based immune assessments in determining therapeutic benefit for patients with RCC receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and provide a foundation for future biomarker studies for patients with variant histology RCC receiving immunotherapy-based combinations.

A Phase I Study of Combination Olaparib and Radium-223 in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) with Bone Metastases (COMRADE).

Given that radium-223 is a radiopharmaceutical that induces DNA damage, and olaparib is a PARP inhibitor that interferes with DNA repair mechanisms, we hypothesized their synergy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We sought to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of olaparib + radium-223. We conducted a multicenter phase I 3+3 dose escalation study of olaparib with fixed dose radium-223 in patients with mCRPC with bone metastases. The primary objective was to establish the RP2D of olaparib, with secondary objectives of safety, PSA response, alkaline phosphatase response, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival, and efficacy by homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene status. Twelve patients were enrolled; all patients received a prior androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI; 100%) and 3 patients (25%) prior docetaxel. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) included cytopenias, fatigue, and nausea. No DLTs were seen in the observation period however delayed toxicities guided the RP2D. The RP2D of olaparib was 200 mg orally twice daily with radium-223. The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (92%) and anemia (58%). The rPFS at 6 months was 58% (95% confidence interval, 27%-80%). Nine patients were evaluable for HRR gene status; 1 had a BRCA2 alteration (rPFS 11.8 months) and 1 had a CDK12 alteration (rPFS 3.1 months). Olaparib can be safely combined with radium-223 at the RP2D 200 mg orally twice daily with fixed dose radium-223. Early clinical benefit was observed and will be investigated in a phase II study.

Upfront Cytoreductive Nephrectomy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors or Targeted Therapy: An Observational Study from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The role of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between upfront CN and clinical outcomes in the setting of mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium, we retrospectively identified patients diagnosed with de novo mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) was compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regressions adjusting for known prognostic factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified a total of 4639 eligible patients with mRCC. Among the 4202 patients treated with targeted therapy and 437 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2326 (55%) and 234 (54%) patients received upfront CN prior to treatment start. In multivariable analyses, CN was associated with significantly better OS in both the immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.90, p = 0.013) and the targeted therapy treatment (HR: 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78, p < 0.001) group. There was no difference in OS benefit of CN between the immune checkpoint inhibitor and targeted therapy treatment groups (interaction p = 0.6). Limitations include selection of patients from large academic centers and the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront CN is associated with a significant OS benefit in selected patients treated by either immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy, and still has a role in selected patients in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors. PATIENT SUMMARY: Before effective systemic therapies were available for metastatic kidney cancer, surgical removal of the primary (kidney) tumor was the mainstay of treatment. The role of removing the primary tumor has recently been called into question given that more effective systemic therapies have become available. In this study, we find that removal of the primary kidney tumor still has a benefit for selected patients treated with highly effective modern systemic therapies, including targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

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.

Neoadjuvant Novel Hormonal Therapy Followed by Prostatectomy versus Up-Front Prostatectomy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to compare outcomes between neoadjuvant therapy with a novel hormonal agent (NHA) prior to radical prostatectomy (neo-RP) and up-front radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: HRPC patients treated on 3 trials of neoadjuvant NHA followed by RP formed the neo-RP cohort (112). The RP group (259) comprised an observational cohort of HRPC patients undergoing RP without neoadjuvant therapy between 2010-2016 at our institution who met key eligibility criteria for the neoadjuvant trials (ie ≥3 positive biopsy cores and Gleason ≥4+3=7). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to minimize potential confounding factors when estimating treatment effects. The primary outcomes were time to biochemical recurrence (BCR) and metastasis-free survival (MFS). RESULTS: Before IPTW, the neo-RP cohort had higher rates of Gleason 9-10 cancer (46% vs 24%), cT3 disease (22% vs 5%), and PSA ≥20 ng/ml (14% vs 7%); after IPTW, the 2 cohorts were balanced. Overall, after IPTW, time to BCR (HR=0.25 [95% CI 0.18-0.37]) and MFS (HR=0.26 [0.15-0.46]) were significantly longer in the neo-RP compared to the RP cohort. Rates of adjuvant (7% vs 24%) and salvage therapy (34% vs 46%) were lower in the neo-RP cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant therapy with an NHA prior to RP was associated with longer time to BCR and superior MFS compared to up-front RP in men with HRPC. These findings are hypothesis-generating but suggest benefit with neoadjuvant therapy with an NHA in HRPC, an approach which is currently being studied in the phase 3 PROTEUS trial (NCT03767244).

Longitudinal Molecular Profiling of Circulating Tumor Cells in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Liquid biopsies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) provide a unique approach to understand the molecular basis of treatment response and resistance. This is particularly important in the context of immunotherapies, which target key immune-tumor interactions. Unlike metastatic tissue biopsies, serial real-time profiling of mRCC is feasible with our noninvasive circulating tumor cell (CTC) approach. METHODS: We collected 457 longitudinal liquid biopsies from 104 patients with mRCC enrolled in one of two studies, either a prospective cohort or a phase II multicenter adaptive immunotherapy trial. Using a novel CTC capture and automated microscopy platform, we profiled CTC enumeration and expression of HLA I and programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Given their diametric immunological roles, we focused on the HLA I to PD-L1 ratio (HP ratio). RESULTS: Patients with radiographic responses showed significantly lower CTC abundances throughout treatment. Furthermore, patients whose CTC enumeration trajectory was in the highest quartile (> 0.12 CTCs/mL annually) had shorter overall survival (median 17.0 months v 21.1 months, P < .001). Throughout treatment, the HP ratio decreased in patients receiving immunotherapy but not in patients receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Patients with an HP ratio trajectory in the highest quartile (≥ 0.0012 annually) displayed significantly shorter overall survival (median 18.4 months v 21.2 months, P = .003). CONCLUSION: In the first large longitudinal CTC study in mRCC to date to our knowledge, we identified the prognostic importance of CTC enumeration and the change over time of both CTC enumeration and the HP ratio. These insights into changes in both tumor burden and the molecular profile of tumor cells in response to different treatments provide potential biomarkers to predict and monitor response to immunotherapy in mRCC.

Biomarker-Based Phase II Study of Sapanisertib (TAK-228): An mTORC1/2 Inhibitor in Patients With Refractory Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Sapanisertib is a kinase inhibitor that inhibits both mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and mTORC2. In this multicenter, single-arm phase II trial, we evaluated the efficacy of sapanisertib in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC; NCT03097328). METHODS: Patients with mRCC of any histology progressing through standard therapy (including prior mTOR inhibitors) had baseline biopsy and received sapanisertib 30 mg by mouth once weekly until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was objective response rate by RECIST 1.1. Tissue biomarkers of mTOR pathway activation were explored. RESULTS: We enrolled 38 patients with mRCC (clear cell = 28; variant histology = 10) between August 2017 and November 2019. Twenty-four (63%) had received ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy; 17 (45%) had received prior rapalog therapy. The median follow-up was 10.4 (range 1-27.4) months. Objective response rate was two of 38 (5.3%; 90% CI, 1 to 15.6); the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 3.7). Twelve patients (32%) developed treatment-related grade 3 adverse events, with no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Alterations in the mTOR pathway genes were seen in 5 of 29 evaluable patients (MTOR n = 1, PTEN n = 3, and TSC1 n = 1) with no association with response or PFS. Diminished or loss of PTEN expression by immunohistochemistry was seen in 8 of 21 patients and trended toward shorter PFS compared with intact PTEN (median 1.9 v 3.7 months; hazard ratio 2.5; 95% CI, 0.9 to 6.7; P = .055). CONCLUSION: Sapanisertib had minimal activity in treatment-refractory mRCC independent of mTOR pathway alterations. Additional therapeutic strategies are needed for patients with refractory mRCC.

Biomarkers of Angiogenesis and Clinical Outcomes to Cabozantinib and Everolimus in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma from the Phase III METEOR Trial.

PURPOSE: Antiangiogenic VEGF receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors are approved for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) and their efficacy is higher in high angiogenic tumors. As cabozantinib inhibits multiple tyrosine kinase receptors, including VEGFRs, we tested whether markers of angiogenesis, including microvascular density (MVD) and mast cell density (MCD), could predict benefit from cabozantinib versus everolimus, using RCC samples from the METEOR (NCT01865747) trial. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: MVD and MCD were studied in 430 patients (cabozantinib = 216, everolimus = 214) by double immunohistochemistry for CD31 (vascular marker) and tryptase (mast cell marker) coupled with automated image analysis. Results from evaluable cases (MVD = 360, MCD = 325) were correlated with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: MVD was positively correlated with MCD. In the whole cohort, high MVD and high MCD were associated with longer PFS; improved PFS was most evident in patients with high levels of both MCD and MVD. Cabozantinib was associated with improved PFS, OS, and ORR compared with everolimus, irrespective of MVD levels. Cabozantinib was also associated with improved ORR compared with everolimus, irrespective of MCD levels. For PFS and OS, the treatment effect for cabozantinib versus everolimus tended to be greater in tumors with low MCD. CONCLUSIONS: High MVD and high MCD are associated with improved outcome in mccRCC but do not predict efficacy to cabozantinib versus everolimus. The high efficacy of cabozantinib in low angiogenic tumors allows us to speculate that its antitumor activity is not exclusively mediated by VEGFR inhibition.

Clinical Activity and Safety of Cabozantinib for Brain Metastases in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have been underrepresented in clinical trials, and effective systemic therapy is lacking. Cabozantinib shows robust clinical activity in metastatic RCC, but its effect on brain metastases remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical activity and toxic effects of cabozantinib to treat brain metastases in patients with metastatic RCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with metastatic RCC and brain metastases treated in 15 international institutions (US, Belgium, France, and Spain) between January 2014 and October 2020. Cohort A comprised patients with progressing brain metastases without concomitant brain-directed local therapy, and cohort B comprised patients with stable or progressing brain metastases concomitantly treated by brain-directed local therapy. EXPOSURES: Receipt of cabozantinib monotherapy at any line of treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Intracranial radiological response rate by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and toxic effects of cabozantinib. RESULTS: Of the 88 patients with brain metastases from RCC included in the study, 33 (38%) were in cohort A and 55 (62%) were in cohort B; the majority of patients were men (n = 69; 78%), and the median age at cabozantinib initiation was 61 years (range, 34-81 years). Median follow-up was 17 months (range, 2-74 months). The intracranial response rate was 55% (95% CI, 36%-73%) and 47% (95% CI, 33%-61%) in cohorts A and B, respectively. In cohort A, the extracranial response rate was 48% (95% CI, 31%-66%), median time to treatment failure was 8.9 months (95% CI, 5.9-12.3 months), and median overall survival was 15 months (95% CI, 9.0-30.0 months). In cohort B, the extracranial response rate was 38% (95% CI, 25%-52%), time to treatment failure was 9.7 months (95% CI, 6.0-13.2 months), and median overall survival was 16 months (95% CI, 12.0-21.9 months). Cabozantinib was well tolerated, with no unexpected toxic effects or neurological adverse events reported. No treatment-related deaths were observed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, cabozantinib showed considerable intracranial activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with RCC and brain metastases. Support of prospective studies evaluating the efficacy of cabozantinib for brain metastases in patients with RCC is critical.