Single-cell protein activity analysis identifies recurrence-associated renal tumor macrophages.

Clear cell renal carcinoma (ccRCC) is a heterogeneous disease with a variable post-surgical course. To assemble a comprehensive ccRCC tumor microenvironment (TME) atlas, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) of hematopoietic and non-hematopoietic subpopulations from tumor and tumor-adjacent tissue of treatment-naive ccRCC resections. We leveraged the VIPER algorithm to quantitate single-cell protein activity and validated this approach by comparison to flow cytometry. The analysis identified key TME subpopulations, as well as their master regulators and candidate cell-cell interactions, revealing clinically relevant populations, undetectable by gene-expression analysis. Specifically, we uncovered a tumor-specific macrophage subpopulation characterized by upregulation of TREM2/APOE/C1Q, validated by spatially resolved, quantitative multispectral immunofluorescence. In a large clinical validation cohort, these markers were significantly enriched in tumors from patients who recurred following surgery. The study thus identifies TREM2/APOE/C1Q-positive macrophage infiltration as a potential prognostic biomarker for ccRCC recurrence, as well as a candidate therapeutic target.

Long-Term Survival in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Tivozanib: Analysis of the Phase III TIVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib is an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Long-term exploratory analyses from the TIVO-3 trial in relapsed/refractory (R/R) RCC including patients (26%) with prior immuno-oncology (IO) therapy are reported. METHODS: Patients with R/R advanced RCC that progressed with 2 or 3 prior systemic therapies (≥1 VEGFR TKI) were randomized to tivozanib 1.5 mg QD or sorafenib 400 mg BID, stratified by IMDC risk and previous therapy. Safety, investigator-assessed long-term progression-free survival (LT-PFS), and serial overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean time on treatment was 11.0 months with tivozanib (n = 175) and 6.3 months with sorafenib (n = 175). Fewer grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred with tivozanib (46%) than sorafenib (55%). Dose modification rates were lower with tivozanib than sorafenib across age/prior IO subgroups; prior IO therapy did not impact dose reductions or discontinuations in either arm. Landmark LT-PFS rates were higher with tivozanib (3 years: 12.3% vs 2.4%; 4 years: 7.6% vs 0%). After 22.8 months mean follow-up, the OS HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.14); when conditioned on 12-month landmark PFS, tivozanib showed significant OS improvement over sorafenib (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91; 2-sided P = .0221). CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib demonstrated a consistent safety profile and long-term survival benefit in patients with R/R advanced RCC who were alive and progression free at 12 months. These post hoc exploratory analyses of LT-PFS and conditional OS support a clinically meaningful improvement with tivozanib versus sorafenib in this advanced RCC population.

A phase 1b open-label study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of py314 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Checkpoint inhibition (CPI) is a standard therapeutic approach in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, not all patients respond to CPI, and the immune suppressive characteristics of the RCC tumor microenvironment may contribute to treatment failure. Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid Cells-2 (TREM2) is a transmembrane protein expressed on a subset of myeloid cells with M2-like anti-inflammatory properties that has previously been associated with disease recurrence after nephrectomy and poor outcomes when expressed at high levels. PY314 is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting TREM2 that depletes tumor-associated macrophages. In this study, the combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab was investigated in patients with CPI-refractory RCC. Eligible patients had clear cell RCC with disease progression on prior CPI either in combination or sequentially with VEGF-TKI. Patients were treated with PY314 10 mg/kg in combination with pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 21 days. The primary objective was to assess safety and tolerability and secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics and anti-tumor activity by RECIST v1.1. Seventeen patients were enrolled with a median age of 67 years, 82% male, 100% had prior CPI, and 76% had received three or more prior lines of therapy. The combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile with 47.1% any grade treatment-related adverse events (AE) (including only 5.9% grade ≥ 3), the most common being fatigue, pyrexia, nausea, and infusion-related reactions. One patient achieved a partial response (6%), and four patients had stable disease (24%) as their best response. The median PFS was 1.4 months (95% CI 1.2- 3.8). The combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab was safe, but the limited anti-tumor effect observed suggests that TREM2 targeting in conjunction with PD-1 blockade may not overcome resistance to prior CPI. Further investigation is warranted to determine if improved efficacy can be achieved in IO-naïve settings. Trial Registration: NCT04691375.

PADRES: a phase 2 clinical trial of neoadjuvant axitinib for complex partial nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To report the results of PADRES (Prior Axitinib as a Determinant of Outcome of Renal Surgery, NCT03438708), a study investigating neoadjuvant axitinib for tumours of high complexity with imperative indication for partial nephrectomy (PN). METHODS: We conducted a single-arm phase II clinical trial of localized (cT1b-cT3M0) clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with imperative indications for nephron preservation, where PN is a high-risk procedure due to complexity (RENAL score 10-12). Axitinib 5 mg was administered twice daily for 8 weeks with repeat imaging at completion, followed by surgery. The primary outcome was successful completion of planned PN following axitinib treatment. Secondary objectives included changes in tumour diameter, RENAL nephrometry score, renal function and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v1.1, and surgical complications. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled (median age 69 years). Prior to therapy, twenty patients (74.0%) had ≥ clinical T3a staged tumours. Axitinib resulted in reductions in tumour diameter (7.5 vs 6.2 cm; P < 0.001) and RENAL score (11 vs 10; P < 0.001). Nine patients (33.3%) had partial response based on RECIST and nine (33.3%) were clinically downstaged. PN was performed in twenty patients (74.0%); twenty-five patients (96.2%) had negative margins. Six patients (22.2%) had Clavien III-IV complications. The median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (preoperative to last follow-up) was 8.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 . CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant axitnib resulted in reductions in tumour size and complexity, enabling safe and feasible PN and functional preservation in patients with complex renal masses and imperative indication.

Treatment of renal cell carcinoma: Current status and future directions.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Over the past 12 years, medical treatment for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has transitioned from a nonspecific immune approach (in the cytokine era), to targeted therapy against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and now to novel immunotherapy agents. Multiple agents-including molecules against vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and related receptors; inhibitors of other targets, such as the mammalian target of rapamycin and the MET and AXL tyrosine-protein kinase receptors; and an immune-checkpoint inhibitor-have been approved based on significant activity in patients with advanced RCC. Despite these advances, important questions remain regarding biomarkers of efficacy, patient selection, and the optimal combination and sequencing of agents. The purpose of this review is to summarize present management and future directions in the treatment of metastatic RCC. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:507-524. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Plain language summary looking at how long side effects last after treatment with axitinib is stopped in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Axitinib is a medication that stops cancer cell growth by depriving the cancer cell of the nutrients and oxygen that it needs. Axitinib is used to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is a type of kidney cancer that has spread within or beyond the kidney. Axitinib has been approved for the treatment of RCC as either a first treatment option or a second treatment option. It is used as a first treatment option for RCC when combined with a medication that reactivates the immune system (immunotherapy), either avelumab or pembrolizumab. If the advanced RCC starts growing again it can be used as a second treatment option where it is taken by itself. It is essential to conduct studies to assess how well the drug works and whether it has any side effects in order to understand whether it is safe to give to people. This summary reports the combined results of 5 studies and looks at how long side effects last after treatment is temporarily stopped. Researchers found that side effects generally got better in 3 days or less after people stopped taking axitinib on its own. The time it took for side effects to get better was generally shorter than for other similar drugs or combinations of axitinib and immunotherapy. The results of individual studies may vary from these 5 combined study results. Three of the 5 studies were ongoing at the time of this analysis and the final outcomes of those studies may differ from those described in this summary. The purpose of this plain language summary is to help you understand the findings from recent research. Health professionals should make treatment decisions based on all available evidence. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00678392, NCT00920816, NCT02493751, NCT02684006, NCT02853331 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

LITESPARK-012: pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib with or without belzutifan or quavonlimab for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Combination treatment with immunotherapy agents and/or vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are a standard of care for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Novel therapeutic combinations that include the hypoxia-inducible factor 2α inhibitor belzutifan and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor quavonlimab are being investigated for their potential to further improve patient outcomes. This protocol describes the rationale and design of the randomized, phase III LITESPARK-012 study, which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib with or without belzutifan or quavonlimab as first-line treatment for advanced ccRCC. Results from this study may support triplet combination therapies as a potential new standard of care for advanced ccRCC. Clinical trial registry: NCT04736706 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib showed antitumor activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Whether pembrolizumab plus axitinib would result in better outcomes than sunitinib in such patients was unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 861 patients with previously untreated advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily (432 patients) or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for the first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle (429 patients). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end point was the objective response rate. All reported results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, the estimated percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 89.9% in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 78.3% in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 11.1 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 59.3% (95% CI, 54.5 to 63.9) in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 35.7% (95% CI, 31.1 to 40.4) in the sunitinib group (P<0.001). The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was observed across the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups (i.e., favorable, intermediate, and poor risk) and regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression. Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 75.8% of patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and in 70.6% in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival, as well as a higher objective response rate, than treatment with sunitinib. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-426 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02853331.).

Approaches to First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Four immuno-oncology (IO)-based combinations have demonstrated overall survival benefit as frontline treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Choosing among the available combinations depends on treating physician's interpretation of existing data without level I evidence to inform choice of therapy. Landmark trials of mccRCC are reviewed and perspective on treatment options is provided. RECENT FINDINGS: The four IO-based combinations reviewed are ipilimumab/nivolumab (IO/IO), pembrolizumab/axitinib (IO/TKI), nivolumab/cabozantinib (IO/TKI), and pembrolizumab/lenvatinib (IO/TKI). The ipilimumab/nivolumab combination is notable for durable efficacy after extended 4-year follow-up. IO/TKI combinations have clinical efficacy across all IMDC risk groups with higher response rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS) but also had higher ≥ grade 3 adverse events rate. Patient tumor burden, performance status, and IMDC risk group are factors in choosing an IO-based treatment. IO/IO and IO/TKI combinations for mccRCC have distinct efficacy and toxicity profiles. Future studies are needed to identify biomarkers to optimize patient outcomes.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: outcomes of Japanese patients enrolled in the randomized, phase III, open-label KEYNOTE-426 study.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III open-label KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study, first-line pembrolizumab and axitinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). KEYNOTE-426 evaluated patients enrolled from 25 sites in Japan. METHODS: Patients enrolled in Japan were included in this post hoc subgroup analysis. Adults with clear cell mRCC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily or oral sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Objective response rate (ORR) and safety were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The Japanese subgroup comprised 94 patients (pembrolizumab-axitinib, n = 44; sunitinib, n = 50; 11% of the intent-to-treat population). Median time from randomization to data cutoff (January 6, 2020) was 29.5 months (range 24.6-37.3). Consistent with the intent-to-treat population, the OS, PFS, and ORR suggested improvement with pembrolizumab-axitinib versus sunitinib in the Japanese subgroup. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 70% of patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib versus 78% receiving sunitinib; 11 (25%) patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib and 13 (27%) patients receiving sunitinib discontinued the study medication due to AEs. TRAEs led to the discontinuation of pembrolizumab, axitinib, pembrolizumab-axitinib, or sunitinib in 32%, 34%, 14%, and 20%, respectively. No deaths from TRAEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy outcomes for the Japanese subgroup were consistent with those of the global population. Safety in Japanese patients was consistent with the results from the global population.

Hydroxychloroquine as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Workers: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TIVO-3): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by inhibitors of VEGF receptor. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with a VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor might be effective in patients who had previous checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Therefore, TIVO-3 was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of tivozanib (a potent and selective VEGFR inhibitor) with those of sorafenib as third-line or fourth-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled trial done at 120 academic hospitals in 12 countries, we enrolled eligible patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic renal cell carcinoma and at least two previous systemic treatments (including at least one previous treatment with a VEGFR inhibitor), measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were excluded if they had received previous treatment with tivozanib or sorafenib. Patients were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category and type of previous therapy and randomised (1:1) with a complete permuted block design (block size of four) to either tivozanib 1·5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02627963. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 2016, and Aug 14, 2017, 350 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivozanib (175 patients) or sorafenib (175 patients). Median follow-up was 19·0 months (IQR 15·0-23·4). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with tivozanib (5·6 months, 95% CI 5·29-7·33) than with sorafenib (3·9 months, 3·71-5·55; hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·56-0·94; p=0·016). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (35 [20%] of 173 patients treated with tivozanib and 23 [14%] of 170 patients treated with sorafenib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (11%) patients with tivozanib and in 17 (10%) patients with sorafenib. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that tivozanib as third-line or fourth-line therapy improved progression-free survival and was better tolerated compared with sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: AVEO Oncology.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. INTERPRETATION: With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Axitinib plus immune checkpoint inhibitor: evidence- and expert-based consensus recommendation for treatment optimisation and management of related adverse events.

With the recent approval of the combinations of axitinib with the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) pembrolizumab or avelumab for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, guidance on how to distinguish between immune-related adverse events (AEs) caused by ICI versus axitinib-related AEs is necessary to optimise therapy with axitinib-ICI combinations. The recommendations here are based on (1) systematic review of published evidence, (2) discussion among experts in the field and (3) a survey to obtain expert consensus on specific measures for therapy management with the combinations axitinib/avelumab and axitinib/pembrolizumab. The experts identified areas of AEs requiring unique management during treatment with axitinib-ICI combinations that were not covered by current recommendations. Diarrhoea, hepatic toxicity, fatigue and cardiovascular AEs were found to be applicable to such specialised management. Triage between immune-suppressive and supportive measures is a key component in therapy management. Clinical monitoring and experience with both classes of agents are necessary to manage this novel therapeutic approach. We focused on AEs with an overlap between axitinib and ICI therapy. Our recommendations address AE management of axitinib-ICI combinations with the aim to improve the safety of these therapies.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMmotion151): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821. FINDINGS: Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11·2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7·7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·57-0·96]; p=0·0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0·93 (0·76-1·14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Genentech Inc.

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

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

Angiogenic and immunomodulatory biomarkers in axitinib-treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aim: Immunomodulatory mechanisms contributing to angiogenic inhibition in renal tumors are not well characterized. We report associations between efficacy and tumor-associated immune cells and mRNA/miRNA expression in patients from AXIS. Materials & methods: Immunohistochemistry (n = 52) and mRNA/miRNA expression analyses (n = 72) were performed on tumor samples. Results: In axitinib-treated patients, higher CXCR4 and TLR3 expression, respectively, was associated with longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio; 95% CI: 0.3; 0.1-0.8 and 0.4; 0.2-0.9) and showed interaction with treatment (p = 0.029 and p < 0.001); lower CCR7 expression was associated with objective response (odds ratio: 0.1; 95% CI: 0.01-1.0) and longer overall survival (hazard ratio: 3.9; 95% CI: 1.4-10.3). Conclusion: CCR7, CXCR4 and TLR3 expression levels may be prognostic/predictive of clinical benefit with axitinib. Clinical trial identifier: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00678392.

Systemic therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma after discontinuation of immune-oncology and VEGF targeted therapy combinations.

BACKGROUND: Several phase 3 studies reported positive results for combinations of Immune-Oncology (IO) and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) targeted therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC). However, there are limited data on outcomes to systemic therapy after IO-VEGF combinations. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with metastatic ccRCC treated at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic who initiated systemic therapy post IO-VEGF including combinations with VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (IO-TKI) and combinations with the anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab (IO-Bev). The study objectives were to evaluate the objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) on systemic therapy post IO-VEGF. RECIST v1.1 criteria were used to determine radiological responses and progression. Survival estimates were evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier methods and the log-rank test from the start of systemic therapy post IO-VEGF to the event of interest. RESULTS: A total of fifty-nine patients were treated post discontinuation of IO-VEGF regimens which included IO-Bev (n = 35; 59%) and IO-TKI (n = 24; 41%). Fifty-eight patients (98%) received IO-VEGF regimens as part of a clinical trial. Subsequent therapies included cabozantinib (n = 22; 37%), axitinib (n = 18; 31%), pazopanib (n = 4; 7%), lenvatinib and everolimus (n = 4; 7%), mTOR inhibitor monotherapy (n = 3; 5%), axitinib and dalantercept (n = 2; 3%), sunitinib (n = 1; 2%), sorafenib (n = 1; 2%), and treatment with agents on unreported clinical trials (n = 4; 7%). Patients treated on unreported clinical trials were excluded from the efficacy analysis. Post IO-VEGF, the ORR was 25% and median PFS was 12.0 months (95% CI, 8.2-24.5). Median OS was 24.5 months (95% CI, 12-NE) and 12 months OS rate was 63.3% (95% CI, 48.6-74.9). We observed no differences post IO-VEGF OS when comparing IO- TKI vs IO-Bev (Log-rank p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Post IO-VEGF, most patients received VEGFR-TKIs. In this setting, VEGFR-TKIs demonstrated clinical activity and remain a viable option for salvage therapy after progression on IO-VEGF.