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.

Tailored immunotherapy approach with nivolumab with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab as immunotherapeutic boost in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (TITAN-RCC): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is approved as first-line regimen for intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and nivolumab monotherapy as second-line therapy for all risk groups. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination as an immunotherapeutic boost after no response to nivolumab monotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk and poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: TITAN-RCC is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, done at 28 hospitals and cancer centres across Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk or poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were formerly untreated (first-line population) or pretreated with one previous systemic therapy (anti-angiogenic or temsirolimus; second-line population) were eligible. Patients had to have a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70 and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). Patients started with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks. On early progressive disease (week 8) or non-response at week 16, patients received two or four doses of intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) boosts (once every 3 weeks), whereas responders continued with intravenous nivolumab (240 mg, once every 2 weeks), but could receive two to four boost doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for subsequent progressive disease. The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study medication; safety was also assessed in this population. An objective response rate of more than 25% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show improvement, on the basis of results from the pivotal phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02917772, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 28, 2016, and Nov 30, 2018, 207 patients were enrolled and all received nivolumab induction (109 patients in the first-line group; 98 patients in the second-line group). 60 (29%) of 207 patients were female and 147 (71%) were male. 147 (71%) of 207 patients had intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma and 51 (25%) had poor-risk disease. After median follow-up of 27·6 months (IQR 10·5-34·8), 39 (36%, 90% CI 28-44; p=0·0080) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 31 (32%, 24-40; p=0·083) of 98 patients in the second-line group had a confirmed objective response for nivolumab with and without nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Confirmed response to nivolumab at week 8 or 16 was observed in 31 (28%) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 18 (18%) of 98 patients in the second-line group. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (reported in ≥5% of patients) were increased lipase (15 [7%] of 207 patients), colitis (13 [6%]), and diarrhoea (13 [6%]). Three deaths were reported that were deemed to be treatment-related: one due to possible ischaemic stroke, one due to respiratory failure, and one due to pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: In treatment-naive patients, nivolumab induction with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts significantly improved the objective response rate compared with that reported for nivolumab monotherapy in the CheckMate-025 trial. However, overall efficacy seemed inferior when compared with approved upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For second-line treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab could be a rescue strategy on progression with approved nivolumab monotherapy. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Prevalence of pathogenic germline variants in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Germline pathogenic variants are estimated to affect 3-5% of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients. However, higher mutational prevalence in non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC) and advanced disease has been suggested. METHODS: To clarify the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants in metastatic RCC, we sequenced 29 cancer susceptibility genes in 294 unselected metastatic RCC cases plus 21 patients with clinical hereditary features. In 145 tumors, genes frequently mutated in RCC were sequenced and methylation was assessed in selected cases. RESULTS: Germline variants in RCC predisposition genes (FH, VHL) were detected in 1.4% of the unselected metastatic patients, with higher frequency in non-ccRCC versus ccRCC (6.4% and 0.4%; P = 0.0025) and in younger patients (P = 0.036). Among the 315 studied patients, 14% of non-type 1 papillary cases (4 of 28), all metastatic <1 year after diagnosis, carried a FH germline variant with loss of heterozygosity and tumor genome hypermethylation. Variants in other cancer-associated genes (e.g., MUTYH, BRCA2, CHEK2) occurred in 5.1% of the unselected series, with unclear significance for RCC. CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm a high prevalence of pathogenic germline variants in RCC predisposition genes in metastatic non-ccRCC, and highlight that metastatic patients with papillary type 2 or unconventional histologies compatible with FH would benefit from genetic screening.

Outcomes of systemic targeted therapy in recurrent renal cell carcinoma treated with adjuvant sunitinib.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of rechallenge with sunitinib and other targeted therapies (TTs) in patitents with relapsed recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the advanced setting. METHODS: In this multi-institutional retrospective study, patients with relapsed RCC were rechallenged with sunitinib or other systemic TTs as a first-line therapeutic approach after failed adjuvant sunitinib treatment. Patient characteristics, treatments and clinical outcomes were recorded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 34 patients with relapses were recorded, and 25 of these (73.5%) were men. Twenty-five patients were treated with systemic TT: 65% of patients received TT against the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (including sunitinib), 21.7% received mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and 13% received immunotherapy. The median (interquartile range) time to relapse was 20.3 (5.2-20.4) months from diagnosis, and 7.5 months (1.0-8.5) from the end of adjuvant suntinib treatment. At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, 24 of the 25 patients had progressed on first-line systemic therapy. The median PFS was 12.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.78-18.2). There were no statistical differences in PFS between different treatments or sunitinib rechallenge. PFS was not statistically different in patients relapsing on or after adjuvant suntinib treatment (≤ 6 or >6 months after adjuvant suntinib ending). The ORR was 20.5%. The median OS was 29.1 months (95% CI 16.4-41.8). CONCLUSIONS: Rechallenge with sunitinib or other systemic therapies is still a feasible therapeutic option that provides patients with advanced or metastastic RCC with additional clinical benefits with regard to PFS and OS after failed response to adjuvant sunitinib.

Insights into the Use of Peripherally Acting µ-Opioid Receptor Antagonists (PAMORAs) in Oncologic Patients: from Scientific Evidence to Real Clinical Practice.

OPINION STATEMENT: Management of chronic pain is crucial to improve the quality of life of cancer and palliative care patients. Opioid-based treatments used to control pain can be prolonged over time. Unfortunately, constipation is one of the most disturbing adverse effects of long-term use of opioids. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) occurs when opioids bind to the specific receptors present in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and can affect any patients receiving chronic opioid therapy, including cancer patients. The limited efficacy of laxatives to treat OIC symptoms prompted the search for new therapeutic strategies. Peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) have recently emerged as new effective drugs for OIC management due to their specific binding to enteric µ-receptors. Little information is available on the use of PAMORAs in real-life practice for OIC treatment in cancer patients. In this paper, a panel of experts specializing in cancer and palliative care pools their clinical experience with PAMORAs in cancer patients presenting OIC and highlights the importance of timing and choice of therapy in achieving prompt OIC management and benefitting patients.

Molecular characterization of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma reveals mTOR pathway alterations in patients with poor outcome.

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) is a histologically and molecularly distinct class of rare renal tumor. TCGA studies revealed low mutational burden, with only TP53 and PTEN recurrently mutated, and discovered alterations in TERT promoter and in the electron transport chain Complex I genes. However, knowledge on drug targetable genes is limited and treatments at metastatic stage do not follow a molecular rationale. In a large series of 92 chRCC enriched with metastatic cases, we performed an in-depth characterization of mTOR pathway alterations through targeted NGS and immunohistochemistry (IHC) of phospho-S6, tuberin, and PTEN. Mutations in mitochondria, telomere maintenance and other renal cancer related genes and p53 IHC, were also assessed. The impact on metastasis development and disease specific survival was determined, using TCGA-KICH series (n = 65) for validation. mTOR pathway mutations (MTOR, TSC1, TSC2) were present in 17% of primary tumors, most of them being classified as pathogenic. Mutations were associated with positive IHC staining of phospho-S6 and PTEN (P = 0.009 and P = 0.001, respectively) and with chRCC eosinophilic variant (P = 0.039), supporting a biological relevance of the pathway. mTOR pathway mutations were associated with worse clinical outcomes. Survival analysis gave a hazard ratio of 5.5 (P = 0.027), and this association was confirmed in TCGA-KICH (HR = 10.3, P = 0.006). TP53 mutations were enriched in metastatic cases (P = 0.018), and mutations in telomere maintenance genes showed a trend in the same direction. p53 IHC staining pattern was associated with the underlying TP53 defect, and negative PTEN IHC staining (82% of cases) suggested PTEN loss as a chRCC hallmark. In conclusion, our study provides with novel genomic knowledge in chRCC and identifies novel markers of poor survival. Furthermore, this is the first study showing that mTOR pathway mutations correlate with poor prognosis, and may help to identify patients with increased sensitivity to mTOR inhibitors.

Challenges of Treating a Patient With Advanced Prostate Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

A 78-year-old man had a medical history of hypertension, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). He had progressed to first-line therapy for CRPC with abiraterone plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and as second-line therapy he was being treated with docetaxel, with biochemical progression in his last prostate specific antigen measurement. He was admitted to the hospital on April 2020, in the middle of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, because of painful bone lesions and deterioration of renal function.

Targeted genomic landscape of metastases compared to primary tumours in clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The genomic landscape of primary clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) has been well described. However, little is known about cohort genomic alterations (GA) landscape in ccRCC metastases, or how it compares to primary tumours in aggregate. The genomic landscape of metastases may have biological, clinical, and therapeutic implications. METHODS: We collected targeted next-generation sequencing mutation calls from two independent cohorts and described the metastases GA landscape and descriptively compared it to the GA landscape in primary tumours. RESULTS: The cohort 1 (n = 578) consisted of 349 primary tumours and 229 metastases. Overall, the most common mutations in the metastases were VHL (66.8%), PBRM1 (41.87%), and SETD2 (24.7%). TP53 was more frequently mutated in metastases compared to primary tumours (14.85% versus 8.9%; p = 0.031). No other gene had significant difference in the cohort frequency of mutations between the metastases and primary tumours. Mutation burden was not significantly different between the metastases and primary tumours or between metastatic sites. The second cohort (n = 257) consisted of 177 primary tumours and 80 metastases. No differences in frequency of mutations or mutational burden were observed between primaries and metastases. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the theory that ccRCC primary tumours and metastases encompass a uniform distribution of common genomic alterations tested by next-generation sequencing targeted panels. This study does not address variability between matched primary tumours and metastases or the change in genomic alterations over time and after sequential systemic therapies.

Molecular Subtypes Improve Prognostic Value of International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Prognostic Model.

INTRODUCTION: Gene-expression signatures for prognosis have been reported in localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The aim of this study was to test the predictive power of two different signatures, ClearCode34, a 34-gene signature model [Eur Urol 2014;66:77-84], and an 8-gene signature model [Eur Urol 2015;67:17-20], in the setting of systemic therapy for metastatic disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Metastatic RCC (mRCC) patients from five institutions who were part of TCGA were identified and clinical data were retrieved. We trained and implemented each gene model as described by the original study. The latter was demonstrated by faithful regeneration of a figure and results from the original study. mRCC patients were dichotomized to good or poor prognostic risk groups using each gene model. Cox proportional hazard regression and concordance index (C-Index) analysis were used to investigate an association between each prognostic risk model and overall survival (OS) from first-line therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 54 patients were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint was OS. Applying the ClearCode34 model, median survival for the low-risk-ccA (n = 17)-and the high-risk-ccB (n = 37)-subtypes were 27.6 and 22.3 months (hazard ratio (HR): 2.33; p = .039), respectively. ClearCode34 ccA/ccB and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) classifications appear to represent distinct risk criteria in mRCC, and we observed no significant overlap in classification (p > .05, chi-square test). On multivariable analyses and adjusting for IMDC groups, ccB remained independently associated with a worse OS (p = .044); the joint model of ccA/ccB and IMDC was significantly more accurate in predicting OS than a model with IMDC alone (p = .045, F-test). This was also observed in C-Index analysis; a model with both ccA and ccB subtypes had higher accuracy (C-Index 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51-0.75) and 95% CIs of the C-Index that did not include the null value of 0.5 in contrast to a model with IMDC alone (0.60, CI = 0.47-0.72). The 8-gene signature molecular subtype model was a weak but insignificant predictor of survival in this cohort (p = .13). A model that included both the 8-gene signature and IMDC (C-Index 0.62, CI = 0.49-0.76) was more prognostic than IMDC alone but did not reach significance, as the 95% CI included the null value of 0.5. These two genomic signatures share no genes in common and are enriched in different biological pathways. The ClearCode34 included genes ARNT and EPAS1 (also known as HIF2a), which are involved in regulation of gene expression by hypoxia-inducible factor. CONCLUSION: The ClearCode34 but not the 8-gene molecular model improved the prognostic predictive power of the IMDC model in this cohort of 54 patients with metastatic clear cell RCC. The Oncologist 2017;22:286-292 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The clinical and laboratory factors included in the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model provide prognostic information in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The present study shows that genomic signatures, originally validated in localized RCC, may add further complementary prognostic information in the metastatic setting. This study may provide new insights into the molecular basis of certain mRCC subgroups. The integration of clinical and molecular data has the potential to redefine mRCC classification, enhance the understanding of mRCC biology, and potentially predict response to treatment in the future.

A phase 1 study of buparlisib and bevacizumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma progressing on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapies.

BACKGROUND: The phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway is dysregulated in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Buparlisib is a pan-PI3K inhibitor with activity in advanced solid tumors. The primary objective of the current study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities of buparlisib and bevacizumab in patients with mRCC. Secondary objectives included efficacy, biomarker discovery, and additional toxicity. METHODS: This was a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation study of buparlisib (at a dose of 60-100 mg/day) and bevacizumab (at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks). After the MTD was defined, 15 patients were accrued to the expansion cohort. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were accrued (3 were treated at 60 mg/day, 21 were treated at 80 mg/day, 6 were treated at 100 mg/day, and 2 patients never received therapy). The majority of patients had clear cell histology (87%) and 50% had received ≥2 prior lines of therapy. The MTD of buparlisib was 80 mg/day and that of bevacizumab was 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. A total of 28 patients discontinued therapy: 17 because of disease progression, 7 because of toxicity, and 4 for other reasons. Dose-limiting toxicities included rash/pruritis, elevated lipase/amylase, anorexia, and psychiatric disorders (suicidal ideation, depression, and cognitive disturbances). Of the 30 patients who received at least 1 dose, 13% achieved a partial response (95% confidence interval, 4%-31%). Two patients harboring activating PI3KA mutations achieved 42% and 16% maximal tumor shrinkage, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Buparlisib at a dose of 80 mg/day with bevacizumab was found to be a tolerable regimen with preliminary activity in vascular endothelial growth factor-refractory mRCC. The benefit of this combination may be of interest for future mRCC trials, possibly in a selected patient population. Cancer 2016;122:2389-2398. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Risk factors and model for predicting toxicity-related treatment discontinuation in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapies are standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, toxicities can lead to drug discontinuation, which can affect patient outcomes. This study was aimed at identifying risk factors for toxicity and constructing the first model to predict toxicity-related treatment discontinuation (TrTD) in mRCC patients treated with VEGF-targeted therapies. METHODS: The baseline characteristics, treatment outcomes, and toxicity data were collected for 936 mRCC patients receiving first-line VEGF-targeted therapy from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. A competing risk regression model was used to identify risk factors for TrTD, and it accounted for other causes as competing risks. RESULTS: Overall, 198 (23.8%) experienced TrTD. Sunitinib was the most common VEGF-targeted therapy (77%), and it was followed by sorafenib (18.4%). The median time on therapy was 7.1 months for all patients and 4.4 months for patients with TrTD. The most common toxicities leading to TrTD included fatigue, diarrhea, and mucositis. In a multivariate analysis, significant predictors for TrTD were a baseline age ≥60 years, a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) , a single metastatic site, and a sodium level <135 mmol/L. A risk group model was developed that used the number of patient risk factors to predict the risk of TrTD. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest series to date, age, GFR, number of metastatic sites, and baseline sodium level were found to be independent risk factors for TrTD in mRCC patients receiving VEGF-targeted therapy. Based on the number of risk factors present, a model for predicting TrTD was built to be used as a tool for toxicity monitoring in clinical practice.

Whole-Exome Sequencing in Two Extreme Phenotypes of Response to VEGF-Targeted Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Advances in next-generation sequencing have provided a unique opportunity to understand the biology of disease and mechanisms of sensitivity or resistance to specific agents. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a heterogeneous disease and highly variable clinical responses have been observed with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy (VEGF-TT). We hypothesized that whole-exome sequencing analysis might identify genotypes associated with extreme response or resistance to VEGF-TT in metastatic (mRCC). Patients with mRCC who had received first-line sunitinib or pazopanib and were in 2 extreme phenotypes of response were identified. Extreme responders (ERs) were defined as those with partial response or complete response for 3 or more years (n=13) and primary refractory patients (PRPs) were defined as those with progressive disease within the first 3 months of therapy (n=14). International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium prognostic scores were not significantly different between the groups (P=.67). Considering the genes known to be mutated in RCC at significant frequency, PBRM1 mutations were identified in 7 ERs (54%) versus 1 PRP (7%) (P=.01). In addition, mutations in TP53 (n=4) were found only in PRPs (P=.09). Our data suggest that mutations in some genes in RCC may impact response to VEGF-TT.

Safety and effectiveness of vinflunine in patients with metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract after failure of one platinum-based systemic therapy in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract (TCCU) who fail initial platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced disease represent a challenge in daily clinical practice. Vinflunine is approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) but, up to now, limited experience has been reported outside clinical trials. METHODS: We assessed the efficacy and safety of vinflunine in an unselected group of 102 consecutive patients with metastatic TCCU. RESULTS: The median age was 67 years (range 45-83). Among the most common comorbidities that patients presented at baseline were hypertension (50.5%) and diabetes (20.7%).Distant metastases were present in retroperitoneal nodes (58%), lung (29.3%), and bone (20.2%). The ECOG 0, 1 and 2 performance status at the start of vinflunine were 31.3%, 60.6% and 8.1%, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events of any grade were constipation 70.6% (5.9% grade 3-4), vomiting 49.1% (2% grade 3-4), neutropenia 48.1% (12.8% grade 3-4) and abdominal pain 34.3% (4.9% grade 3-4). A median of 4 cycles of vinflunine was administered per patient (range 1-18). Median progression free and overall survival for all patients (N = 102) were 3.9 months (2.3-5.5) and 10 months (7.3-12.8), respectively. Time to tumor progression was 4.3 months (2.6-5.9). Two patients (2%) achieved CR, 23 (22.5%) patients had PR, and 42 (41.2%) presented SD as best response. The clinical benefit rate with vinflunine was 65.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the behavior of vinflunine in routine clinical practice resembles that of the pivotal phase III randomized study.

Targeting HIF-2α and anemia: A therapeutic breakthrough for clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a heterogenous disease which the incidence is increasing worldwide. The identification and understanding of the role of the Von Hipple Lindau (VHP) in regulating the hypoxia-inducible factor signaling pathway has revolutionized the treatment of this disease. Belzutifan is an oral hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-2α inhibitor, which has demonstrated efficacy in treating von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease and for the treatment of adults with RCC who experienced disease progression after PD-1/PD-L1- and VEGFR-targeted therapies. One of the most common adverse effect of this drug is anemia; however, it is treatment is not well known. This review summarizes role of the VHL-HIF pathway in ccRCC aroused the interest of targeting HIF activity, the history of belzutifan development and their relationship to anemia as well as propose a management algorithm.

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.

Case-control study assessing the impact of COVID19 in advanced kidney cancer patients treated with antiangiogenics or immunotherapy: the COVID-REN study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a risk factor for developing severe COVID19. Additionally, SARS-CoV2 has a special tropism for renal cells and complications like thrombosis or cytokine storm could be enhanced by standard treatments in kidney cancer (i.e., antiangiogenics or immunotherapy). Thus, understanding the impact of COVID19 in patients with this tumor is key for their correct management. METHODS: We designed a retrospective case-control study comparing the outcome of three groups of advanced kidney cancer patients on systemic treatment: cohort A (developed COVID19 while on antiangiogenics), cohort B (developed COVID19 while on immunotherapy) and cohort C (non-infected). Matching factors were age, gender, and treatment. RESULTS: 95 patients were recruited in 16 centers in Spain from September 2020 to May 2021. Finally, 85 were deemed as eligible (23 cohort A, 21 cohort B, 41 cohort C). Patients with COVID required more dose interruptions (25 vs. six) and hospitalizations (10 vs. none) than those without COVID (both p = 0.001). No difference between cohorts A and B was observed regarding hospitalization or length of stay. No ICU admission was registered and one patient in cohort B died due to COVID19. Regarding cancer evolution, three patients in cohort A presented progressive disease after COVID19 compared to two in cohort B. One case in cohort B, initially deemed as stable disease, achieved a partial response after COVID19. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney cancer patients who developed COVID19 while on systemic therapy required more treatment interruptions and hospitalizations than those non-infected. However, no significant impact on cancer outcome was observed. Also, no difference was seen between cases on antiangiogenics or immunotherapy.

Successful Pregnancy and Cancer Outcomes With Ipilimumab and Nivolumab for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Pregnancy and cancer share CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 as some of the immunomodulatory pathways that reshape the immune system from a destructive response to a state of tolerance to the fetus and the tumor, respectively. Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 inhibitor) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1 inhibitor) are used in combination for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and their use could theoretically result in an immune response against the fetus. Furthermore, these immune checkpoint inhibitors are immunoglobulin G antibodies that transfer from the mother to the fetus and may cause a direct toxicity. We present the first report of a metastatic renal cell carcinoma patient in which ipilimumab and nivolumab were successfully used starting in her first trimester of pregnancy, with sufficient follow-up to show favorable outcomes for both the mother and the child. We describe our management of this challenging case and we review the available evidence, coming from Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Studies and case reports of metastatic melanoma patients.

Meta-analysis of perioperative immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma: Available, but the jury is still out.

INTRODUCTION: While surgical management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is curative for many patients, others may relapse and could benefit from adjuvant treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been proposed as a potential adjuvant therapy for improving survival in these patients, but the benefit/risk ratio of ICI in the perioperative setting remains unclear. METHODS: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of phase III trials of perioperative ICI (anti PD1/PD-L1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 agents) in RCC was conducted. RESULTS: The analysis included results from 4 phase III trials, comprising 3,407 patients. ICI did not show a significant increase in disease-free survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.04; p: 0.11) or overall survival [OS] (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40-1.34; p: 0.31). High-grade adverse events were more frequent in the immunotherapy arm (OR 2.65; 95% CI 1.53-4.59; p: <0.001), and high-grade treatment-related adverse events were 8 times more frequent in the experimental arm (OR: 8.07; 95% CI: 3.14-20.75; p: <0.001). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences favoring the experimental arm in females (HR: 0.71; 95 CI 0.55-0.92; p: 0.009), in sarcomatoid differentiation (HR: 0.60 95% CI 0.41-0.89; p: 0.01), and PD-L1 positive tumors (HR HR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.61-0.90; p: 0.003). No significant effect was found in patients according to age, type of nephrectomy (radical vs. partial), and stage (M1 without evidence of disease vs. M0 patients). CONCLUSION: Our comprehensive meta-analysis generally suggests that immunotherapy does not confer a survival advantage in the perioperative setting for RCC, with the exception of one positive study. While the overall results are not statistically significant, individual patient factors and other variables may play a role in determining who benefits from immunotherapy. Therefore, despite the mixed findings, immunotherapy may still be a viable treatment option for certain patients, and further studies are needed to determine which patient subgroups would be most likely to benefit.

New prognostic model in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Bellmunt Risk Score, based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), hemoglobin levels and presence of liver metastases, is the most established prognostic algorithm for patients with advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy. Nevertheless, existing algorithms may not be sufficient following the introduction of immunotherapy. Our aim was to develop an improved prognostic model in patients receiving second-line atezolizumab for aUC. METHODS: Patients with aUC progressing after cisplatin/carboplatin-based chemotherapy and enrolled in the prospective, single-arm, phase IIIb SAUL study were included in this analysis. Patients were treated with 3-weekly atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously. The development and internal validation of a prognostic model for overall survival (OS) was performed using Cox regression analyses, bootstrapping methods and calibration. RESULTS: In 936 patients, ECOG PS, alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, liver metastases, bone metastases and time from last chemotherapy were identified as independent prognostic factors. In a 4-tier model, median OS for patients with 0-1, 2, 3-4 and 5-7 risk factors was 18.6, 10.4, 4.8 and 2.1 months, respectively. Compared with Bellmunt Risk Score, this model provided enhanced prognostic separation, with a c-index of 0.725 vs 0.685 and increment in c-statistic of 0.04 (p<0.001). Inclusion of PD-L1 expression did not improve the model. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and internally validated a prognostic model for patients with aUC receiving postplatinum immunotherapy. This model represents an improvement over the Bellmunt algorithm and could aid selection of patients with aUC for second-line immunotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02928406.