Systematic vitamin D supplementation is associated with improved outcomes and reduced thyroid adverse events in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: results from the prospective PROVIDENCE study.

BACKGROUND: Hypovitaminosis D can have a negative prognostic impact in patients with cancer. Vitamin D has a demonstrated role in T-cell-mediated immune activation. We hypothesized that systematic vitamin D repletion could impact clinical outcomes in patients with cancer receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS: We planned a prospective observational study (PROVIDENCE) to assess serum vitamin D levels in patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs (cohort 1 at treatment initiation, cohort 2 during treatment) and the impact of systematic repletion on survival and toxicity outcomes. In an exploratory analysis, we compared the clinical outcomes of cohort 1 with a control cohort of patients followed at the participating centers who did not receive systematic vitamin D repletion. RESULTS: Overall, 164 patients were prospectively recruited in the PROVIDENCE study. In cohort 1, consisting of 101 patients with 94.1% hypovitaminosis (≤ 30 ng/ml) at baseline, adequate repletion with cholecalciferol was obtained in 70.1% at the three months re-assessment. Cohort 2 consisted of 63 patients assessed for vitamin D at a median time of 3.7 months since immunotherapy initiation, with no patients having adequate levels (> 30 ng/ml). Even in cohort 2, systematic supplementation led to adequate levels in 77.8% of patients at the three months re-assessment. Compared to a retrospective control group of 238 patients without systematic vitamin D repletion, PROVIDENCE cohort 1 showed longer overall survival (OS, p = 0.013), time to treatment failure (TTF, p = 0.017), and higher disease control rate (DCR, p = 0.016). The Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighing (IPTW) fitted multivariable Cox regression confirmed the significantly decreased risk of death (HR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.34-0.90) and treatment discontinuation (HR 0.61, 95%CI: 0.40-0.91) for patients from PROVIDENCE cohort 1 in comparison to the control cohort. In the context of longer treatment exposure, the cumulative incidence of any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was higher in the PROVIDENCE cohort 1 compared to the control cohort. Nevertheless, patients from cohort 1 experienced a significantly decreased risk of all grade thyroid irAEs than the control cohort (OR 0.16, 95%CI: 0.03-0.85). CONCLUSION: The PROVIDENCE study suggests the potential positive impact of early systematic vitamin D supplementation on outcomes of patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs and support adequate repletion as a possible prophylaxis for thyroid irAEs.

Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet-Uro 19BEYOND study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and cabozantinib are currently approved agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but there are no data available for patients progressing to both treatments. The aim of this study was to compare active therapeutic options and best supportive care (BSC) after progression to nivolumab and cabozantinib in mRCC. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we selected 50 patients from eight Italian centers. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of patients on active treatment versus BSC. Secondary endpoints were the progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The efficacy of active therapy was also investigated. RESULTS: After progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib, 57.1% of patients were given active treatment (mainly everolimus and sorafenib) while 42.9% received BSC. The median OS was 13 months (95% CI: 4-NR) in actively treated patients and 3 months (95% CI: 2-4) in BSC patients (p = 0.001). Patients treated with sorafenib had better disease control than those treated with everolimus (stable disease: 71.4% vs. 16.7%, progression disease: 14.3% vs. 58.3%; p = 0.03), with no significant differences in PFS (5 and 3 months, 95% CI: 1-6 vs. 2-5; p = 0.6) and OS (12 and 4 months, 95% CI: 3-NR vs. 2-NR; p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: After treatment with both nivolumab and cabozantinib, the choice of a safe active systemic therapy offered better outcomes than BSC.

Sunitinib, pazopanib or sorafenib for the treatment of patients with late relapsing metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Late recurrence of renal cell carcinoma is not a rare event. In this retrospective study we investigate the clinicopathological features and the outcome of patients treated with sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib for late relapsing renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from 21 Italian centers involved in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Late relapse was defined as more than 5 years after initial radical nephrectomy. RESULTS: A total of 2,490 patients were screened and 269 (11%) were included in the study. First line therapy was sunitinib in 190 patients (71%), sorafenib in 58 (21%) and pazopanib in 21 (8%). Median progression-free survival was 20.0 months for sunitinib (95% CI 17.0-25.1), and 14.1 months for sorafenib (95% CI 11.0-29.0) and pazopanib (95% CI 11.2-not reported). On multivariate analysis MSKCC score and metastases to lymph nodes, liver and brain were associated with worst overall survival, while pancreatic metastases were associated with longer survival. Furthermore, age, MSKCC score and brain metastases were associated with worst progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with late relapsing renal cell carcinoma seem to present a characteristic pattern of metastatic spread without showing significant differences in terms of progression-free survival among sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib.