Real-World Outcomes of Latinx Versus Non-Latinx Patients Treated With First-Line Immunotherapy for Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the impact of ethnicity among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We evaluated real-world outcomes between Latinx and non-Latinx patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first-line nivolumab/ipilimumab within 2 different healthcare settings. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with mRCC who received nivolumab/ipilimumab within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC-DHS), a safety-net healthcare system, and the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center (COH), a tertiary oncology center, between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2021. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and covariates were adjusted using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Of 94 patients, 40 patients (43%) were Latinx while the remainder were non-Latinx (44 pts [46%] White, 7 pts [7%] Asian, and 3 pts [3%] Other). Fifty (53%) and 44 (47%) patients received their care at COH and LAC-DHS, respectively. Most Latinx patients (95%) were treated at LAC-DHS, and most non-Latinx patients (89%) were treated at COH. Pooled analysis by ethnicity demonstrated significantly shorter PFS in Latinx versus non-Latinx patients (10.1 vs. 25.2 months, hazard ratios [HR] 3.61, 95% CI 1.96-6.66, P ≤ .01). Multivariate analysis revealed a HR of 3.41 (95% CI 1.31-8.84; P = .01). At a median follow-up of 11.0 months, the median OS was not reached in either arm at the time of data cutoff. CONCLUSION: Latinx patients with mRCC had a shorter PFS treated with frontline nivolumab/ipilimumab compared to their non-Latinx counterparts. No difference was observed in OS although these data were immature. Larger studies are needed to further interrogate the social and economic determinants of ethnicity on clinical outcomes in mRCC.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without live bacterial supplementation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomized phase 1 trial.

Previous studies have suggested that the gut microbiome influences the response to checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in patients with cancer. CBM588 is a bifidogenic live bacterial product that we postulated could augment CPI response through modulation of the gut microbiome. In this open-label, single-center study (NCT03829111), 30 treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell and/or sarcomatoid histology and intermediate- or poor-risk disease were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab and ipilimumab with or without daily oral CBM588, respectively. Stool metagenomic sequencing was performed at multiple timepoints. The primary endpoint to compare the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. at baseline and at 12 weeks was not met, and no significant differences in Bifidobacterium spp. or Shannon index associated with the addition of CBM588 to nivolumab-ipilimumab were detected. Secondary endpoints included response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity. PFS was significantly longer in patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab with CBM588 than without (12.7 months versus 2.5 months, hazard ratio 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.05-0.47, P = 0.001). Although not statistically significant, the response rate was also higher in patients receiving CBM588 (58% versus 20%, P = 0.06). No significant difference in toxicity was observed between the study arms. The data suggest that CBM588 appears to enhance the clinical outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab-ipilimumab. Larger studies are warranted to confirm this clinical observation and elucidate the mechanism of action and the effects on microbiome and immune compartments.

Active surveillance of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a prospective observational study (MaRCC).

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow-growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient-related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2-sample rank-sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess survival. RESULTS: Of 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25-44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST. CONCLUSIONS: AS occurs frequently (32%) in real-world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in First-line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This post hoc analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); n = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3-22.9); n = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population.See related commentary by Hwang et al., p. 5.

Final Overall Survival Results from a Phase 3 Study to Compare Tivozanib to Sorafenib as Third- or Fourth-line Therapy in Subjects with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Tivozanib is a potent and selective inhibitor of the VEGF receptor. In an open-label, randomized phase 3 trial, we compared tivozanib to sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who had received two or three prior therapies. We have previously reported that the study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in progression-free survival with tivozanib versus sorafenib (5.6 mo vs 3.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.94; p=0.016). The current report reflects the final assessment of overall survival, showing no difference between treatment with tivozanib and sorafenib (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.24). Given its activity and distinct tolerability profile, tivozanib represents a treatment option for patients with previously treated mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We show that tivozanib, a targeted therapy, can delay tumor growth relative to an already approved targeted therapy (sorafenib) in patients with kidney cancer who have received two or three prior treatments. No difference in survival was observed.

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.

Real-World Survival Outcomes and Prognostic Factors Among Patients Receiving First Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A SEER-Medicare Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The real-world survival outcomes and prognostic factors among patients receiving first-line targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) are not well known. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with RCC and treated with first-line targeted therapy were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database (January 1, 1993 to December 31, 2012). The patients were grouped into early (2006-2009) or late (2010-2012) targeted therapy era cohorts by the year of the first-line targeted therapy initiation. Overall survival (OS) was measured from first-line targeted therapy initiation and compared between the 2 cohorts using Kaplan-Meier analyses. The prognostic factors for OS were assessed using a multivariable-adjusted Cox model. RESULTS: A total of 604 and 641 aRCC patients (mean age, 68 years; ∼60% male in both cohorts) initiated first-line targeted therapy during the early and late targeted therapy eras, respectively. OS was significantly longer in the late than in the early targeted therapy era. Higher tumor grades (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-2.00) and lung (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53), bone (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13-1.66), and liver (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84) metastases were associated with significantly shorter OS. Previous nephrectomy (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.72) and pazopanib as first-line targeted therapy relative to sorafenib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.85) or sunitinib (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.95) were associated with significantly longer OS. CONCLUSION: The results of these real-world analyses suggest progress in aRCC management and identified positive (nephrectomy, pazopanib vs. sunitinib or sorafenib) and negative (higher tumor grade and lung, bone, or liver metastasis) prognostic factors among patients receiving first-line targeted therapy.

Comparative effectiveness of everolimus and axitinib as second targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the US: a retrospective chart review.

Background Second targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORis) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This observational study compares overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of patients treated with everolimus (an mTORi) and axitinib (a TKI) following first TKI, and assesses the impact of type and duration of first TKI on the relative effectiveness of these second targeted therapies. Methods Retrospective reviews of medical records were conducted by medical oncologists or hematologists/oncologists recruited from a nationwide panel. Included patients with mRCC were required to have discontinued a first TKI (sunitinib, sorafenib, or pazopanib) for medical reasons, and to have initiated everolimus or axitinib as second targeted therapy between February 2012 and January 2013. OS and PFS were compared between patients treated with everolimus vs. axitinib using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Comparative results were also stratified by type and duration of first TKI. Results Included patients (n = 325 for everolimus and n = 127 for axitinib) had a mean age of 61 years and 31% were female. Sunitinib was the most commonly used first TKI (73%). After adjusting for patient characteristics, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS or PFS between everolimus and axitinib. When stratifying by type and duration of first TKI, there was no statistically significant difference in OS between everolimus and axitinib in all subgroups except for patients with <6 months on sunitinib or sorafenib as first TKI. No significant difference in PFS was observed in any subgroup. Limitations Important limitations include potential missing or inaccurate data in medical charts, and confounding due to unobserved factors. Conclusions In this retrospective chart review, no significant differences were detected in OS or PFS between axitinib and everolimus as second targeted therapy. Longer duration of first TKI was not associated with increased effectiveness of subsequent axitinib compared to everolimus.

Real-world dosing and drug costs with everolimus or axitinib as second targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective chart review in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To describe dosing patterns and to compare the drug costs per month spent in progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) treated with everolimus or axitinib following a first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). METHODS: A medical record retrospective review was conducted among medical oncologists and hematologists/oncologists in the US. Patient eligibility criteria included: (1) age ≥18 years; (2) discontinuation of first TKI (sunitinib, sorafenib, or pazopanib) for medical reasons; (3) initiation of axitinib or everolimus as a second targeted therapy during February 2012-January 2013. Real-world dosing patterns were summarized. Dose-specific drug costs (as of October 2014) were based on wholesale acquisition costs from RED BOOK Online. PFS was compared between everolimus and axitinib using a multivariable Cox proportion hazards model. Everolimus and axitinib drug costs per month of PFS were compared using multivariable gamma regression models. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients received everolimus and 127 patients received axitinib as second targeted therapy. Higher proportions of patients treated with axitinib vs everolimus started on a higher than label-recommended starting dose (14% vs 2%) or experienced dose escalation (11% vs 1%) on second targeted therapy. The PFS did not differ significantly between patients receiving everolimus or axitinib (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73-1.82). After baseline characteristics adjustment, axitinib was associated with 17% ($1830) higher drug costs per month of PFS compared to everolimus ($12,467 vs $10,637; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective observational study design and only drug acquisition costs considered in drug costs estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with aRCC receiving axitinib as second targeted therapy were more likely to initiate at a higher than label-recommended dose and were more likely to dose escalate than patients receiving everolimus. With similar observed durations of PFS, drug costs were significantly higher-by 17% per month of PFS-with axitinib than with everolimus.

Real-World Effectiveness of Everolimus Subsequent to Different First Targeted Therapies for the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Synthesis of Retrospective Chart Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The effect of first targeted therapy on outcomes with second targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma is not well known. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for patients receiving a second targeted therapy with everolimus by type of first targeted therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were drawn from 3 separate retrospective chart reviews conducted in 2011, 2012, and 2014. Inclusion criteria and study design were similar across the 3 studies. To be included in this analysis, patients had to meet the following criteria: aged ≥ 18 years; received first targeted therapy with pazopanib, sunitinib, or sorafenib; and received second targeted therapy with everolimus. Overall survival, time to treatment failure, and time to treatment discontinuation outcomes were measured from second targeted therapy initiation. Outcomes were compared among treatment groups by Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Hazard ratios for overall survival, time to treatment failure, and time to treatment discontinuation obtained from the 3 chart reviews were synthesized in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Of 696 patients treated with everolimus as second targeted therapy, 605 patients received first targeted therapy with sunitinib/sorafenib and 91 with pazopanib. After synthesizing the hazard ratios from all studies in meta-analyses, there were no significant differences in study outcomes between patients receiving sunitinib/sorafenib versus those receiving pazopanib as first targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences among outcomes while receiving second targeted therapy with everolimus for patients treated with pazopanib versus sunitinib/sorafenib as first targeted therapy.

A phase I trial of mushroom powder in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: Roles of cytokines and myeloid-derived suppressor cells for Agaricus bisporus-induced prostate-specific antigen responses.

BACKGROUND: Each year in the United States, nearly 50,000 prostate cancer patients exhibit a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, which can indicate disease recurrence. For patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer, we evaluated the effects of white button mushroom (WBM) powder on serum PSA levels and determined the tolerability and biological activity of WBM. METHODS: Patients with continuously rising PSA levels were enrolled in the study. Dose escalation was conducted in cohorts of 6; this ensured that no more than 1 patient per cohort experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The primary objective was to evaluate treatment feasibility and associated toxicity. The secondary objectives were to determine WBM's effect on serum PSA/androgen levels; myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs); and cytokine levels. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were treated; no DLTs were encountered. The overall PSA response rate was 11%. Two patients receiving 8 and 14 g/d demonstrated complete response (CR): their PSA declined to undetectable levels that continued for 49 and 30 months. Two patients who received 8 and 12 g/d experienced partial response (PR). After 3 months of therapy, 13 (36%) patients experienced some PSA decrease below baseline. Patients with CR and PR demonstrated higher levels of baseline interleukin-15 than nonresponders; for this group, we observed therapy-associated declines in MDSCs. CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with WBM appears to both impact PSA levels and modulate the biology of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer by decreasing immunosuppressive factors.