Integrating On-Treatment Modified Glasgow Prognostic Score and Imaging to Predict Response and Outcomes in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: In the era of immuno-oncology, imaging alone seems to be insufficient to capture treatment responses, as patients with stable disease treated with immunotherapy have a wide range of clinical outcomes. There is an unmet need for complementary (ideally cost-efficient) markers that enable assessment of therapy response and outcomes in conjunction with imaging. Objectives: To examine whether longitudinal changes in the modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), which is based on C-reactive protein and albumin, can predict responses and outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc analysis, conducted from October 2022 to April 2023, evaluated the prognostic and predictive performance of on-treatment mGPS in patients with mRCC being treated with atezolizumab (plus bevacizumab) or sunitinib in 2 randomized clinical trials: the phase 3 IMmotion151 study (discovery cohort) and the phase 2 IMmotion150 study (validation cohort). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1 and overall survival (OS) for survival analyses. To compare the prognostic value of the on-treatment mGPS with radiologic staging, we used RECIST assessed by the Independent Review Committee (IRC-RECIST) to ensure high data quality. Results: Of the 915 patients with mRCC in the IMmotion151 discovery cohort, baseline mGPS was available for 861 patients and on-treatment mGPS for 691. The IMmotion150 validation cohort included 305 patients with mRCC, and on-treatment mGPS could be evaluated for 199. In the IMmotion150 study, on-treatment mGPS predicted outcomes as early as 6 weeks following therapy initiation, thereby opening a window for early therapy adjustments. In both clinical trials, on-treatment mGPS provided valuable prognostic information regardless of imaging-assessed treatment response at first staging. Of note, in the disease control subgroup, on-treatment mGPS exhibited superior and independent prognostic information compared with IRC-RECIST (available for 611 patients; C-index, 0.651 [95% CI, 0.588-0.714] for the mGPS during treatment vs 0.574 [95% CI, 0.528-0.619] for IRC-RECIST). Conclusions and Relevance: These data support the concept of integrating on-treatment mGPS for more holistic and patient-centered therapy monitoring in addition to radiologic staging to improve clinical care at a low cost for patients with mRCC.

Systemic therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Current systemic treatment of targeted therapies, namely the vascular endothelial growth factor-antibody (VEGF-AB), VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, have improved progression-free survival and replaced non-specific immunotherapy with cytokines in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: A panel of experts convened to review currently available phase 3 data for mRCC treatment of approved agents, in addition to available EAU guideline data for a collaborative review as the plurality of substances offers different options of first-, second- and third-line treatment with potential sequencing. RESULTS: Sunitinib and pazopanib are approved treatments in first-line therapy for patients with favorable- or intermediate-risk clear cell RCC (ccRCC). Temsirolimus has proven benefit over interferon-alfa (IFN-α) in patients with non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC). In the second-line treatment TKIs or mTOR inhibitors are treatment choices. Therapy options after TKI failure consist of everolimus and axitinib. Available third-line options consist of everolimus and sorafenib. Recently, nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD1) checkpoint inhibitor, improved overall survival benefit compared to everolimus after failure of one or two VEGFR-targeted therapies, which is likely to become the first established checkpoint inhibitor in mRCC. Data for the sequencing of agents remain limited. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high level of evidence for first and second-line treatment in mRCC, data for third-line therapy are limited. Possible sequences include TKI-mTOR-TKI or TKI-TKI-mTOR with the upcoming checkpoint inhibitors in perspective, which might settle a new standard of care after previous TKI therapy.

Improvement in survival end points of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma through sequential targeted therapy.

Survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has improved since the advent of targeted therapy. Approved agents include the multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, pazopanib, cabozantinib, and lenvatinib (approved in combination with everolimus), the anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab, the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors everolimus and temsirolimus, and the programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeted immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab. The identification of predictive and prognostic factors of survival is increasing, and both clinical predictive factors and pathology-related prognostic factors are being evaluated. Serum-based biomarkers and certain histologic subtypes of RCC, as well as clinical factors such as dose intensity and the development of some class effect adverse events, have been identified as predictors of survival. Expression levels of microRNAs, expression of chemokine receptor 4, hypermethylation of certain genes, VEGF polymorphisms, and elevation of plasma fibrinogen or d-dimer have been shown to be prognostic indicators of survival. In the future, prognosis and treatment of patients with mRCC might be based on genomic classification, especially of the 4 most commonly mutated genes in RCC (VHL, PBRM1, BAP1, and SETD2). Median overall survival has improved for patients treated with a first-line targeted agent compared with survival of patients treated with first-line interferon-α, and results of clinical trials have shown a survival benefit of sequential treatment with targeted agents. Prognosis of patients with mRCC will likely improve with optimization and individualization of current sequential treatment with targeted agents.

A phase II trial comparing pazopanib with doxorubicin as first-line treatment in elderly patients with metastatic or advanced soft tissue sarcoma (EPAZ): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anthracycline-based treatment remains the backbone of chemotherapy for nonresectable soft tissue sarcomas (STS). More than 30 % of patients with STS are aged 60 years or older, limiting the choice of treatment to single-agent approaches for this elderly population. Hematological toxicity is frequent during doxorubicin monotherapy, grade 4 neutropenia is reported in 34 %, with a febrile neutropenia rate of 9 % in STS. We assume that comorbidities in the elderly population may limit tolerability of doxorubicin, and novel agents may improve tolerability and health-related quality of life while maintaining efficacy. We therefore investigated whether the tyrosine kinase inhibitor pazopanib exerts such a clinical benefit in elderly patients with STS (pazopanib for elderly [the EPAZ study]). METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter, phase II noninferiority trial in which pazopanib 800 mg once daily is being compared six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2) as first-line treatment in elderly patients (≥60 years) with metastatic or advanced STS. A total of 120 patients will be randomized 1:2 to receive doxorubicin or pazopanib, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 vs. 2) and liposarcoma histology (yes vs. no). The primary endpoint is progression-free survival based on local tumor assessment according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Secondary endpoints include grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in hierarchical order, as well as overall survival, objective response rate, health-related quality of life, and geriatric assessments. DISCUSSION: Pazopanib is associated with promising tolerability according to previous studies and may offer a significant clinical advantage in first-line treatment of STS compared with doxorubicin. The elderly population seems especially appealing for such an approach, since these patients are not suitable for aggressive combination therapy. The EPAZ study will confirm whether pazopanib may be an alternative to toxic chemotherapy for elderly patients with STS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01861951 ; registered on 11 April 2013. EudraCT 2011-004168-30; registered on 4 June 2012.

Early Tumour Shrinkage: A Tool for the Detection of Early Clinical Activity in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The predictive role of objective remission remains undefined for targeted agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, early tumour shrinkage (eTS) was shown to be predictive and/or prognostic for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in mRCC in several small studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the degree of eTS following systemic therapy that may predict survival in mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from 4334 patients with mRCC in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials between 2003 and 2013 were pooled for analyses. Early tumour shrinkage was assessed based on percentage change in sum of the longest diameters of target lesions at first postbaseline scan. Patients were categorised by a more or equal versus less optimal threshold of eTS, assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. OS and PFS in patients with eTS were summarised using the Kaplan-Meier method. INTERVENTION: Axitinib, bevacizumab, interferon α, sorafenib, sunitinib, or temsirolimus. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We measured optimal thresholds of eTS and eTS as a predictor of OS or PFS. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Optimal threshold of eTS for the prediction of OS and PFS was determined to be approximately 10%. In Cox proportional hazards models, compared with patients without eTS, those with eTS had significantly longer OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.615; p<0.0001; median: 28.5 vs 16.0 mo) and PFS (HR: 0.628; p<0.0001; median: 10.5 vs 5.3 mo). The major limitation was the retrospective nature of our analysis, including different lines and types of therapy, although subset analyses detected a similar predictive pattern for eTS across all lines and types of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Early tumour shrinkage ≥10% at first postbaseline assessment could serve as a putative early end point in patients with mRCC. A prospective evaluation of eTS in clinical trials is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: Early tumour shrinkage may be used to identify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who would benefit from treatment with antitumour agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical trials are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00267748, NCT00338884, NCT00835978, NCT00065468, NCT00083889, NCT00631371, NCT00920816, NCT00077974, NCT00137423, NCT00054886, NCT00678392, and NCT00474786).

Therapy of mRCC beyond mTOR-inhibition in clinical practice: results of a retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common renal tumor and accounts for nearly 3 % of adult cancers. In the recent years, seven new targeted agents have been approved changing the treatment in metastatic RCC dramatically. So far, however, it remains unclear which sequence is best for those patients. This study analyzed retrospectively the outcome of patients treated with everolimus after failure of a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-directed therapy and which therapies were used after everolimus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, patients receiving everolimus after failure of first-line VEGFR-directed therapy have been analyzed in regard to response, duration of treatment and subsequent therapies. In total, the data of 81 patients have been analyzed. RESULTS: The most observed first-line therapy was sunitinib followed by sorafenib. Thirty-two patients received everolimus as second-line therapy, and 49 as third-line therapy. The median duration of treatment with everolimus was 4.5 months. Seventy-seven of eighty-one patients (95 %) received a further therapy after discontinuation of everolimus. The agents administered beyond were sunitinib (28.6 %), sorafenib (28.6 %) and 42.8 % received other therapies. Twenty-seven patients received an additional sequence of therapy (fourth to fifth line). Fifty-eight percentage of patients have still been alive at time of analysis. CONCLUSION: The duration of everolimus therapy beyond failure of anti-VEGF-directed therapy and the reported time to progression was in the range of the RECORD-1 trial in daily practice as well. After failure of everolimus, reexposure to tyrosine kinase inhibitors is a common clinical practice and demonstrates a clinical benefit of therapies beyond everolimus.

Dovitinib versus sorafenib for third-line targeted treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: An unmet medical need exists for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on VEGF-targeted and mTOR-inhibitor therapies. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathway activation has been proposed as a mechanism of escape from VEGF-targeted therapies. Dovitinib is an oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor that inhibits VEGF and FGF receptors. We therefore compared dovitinib with sorafenib as third-line targeted therapies in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre phase 3 study, patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received one previous VEGF-targeted therapy and one previous mTOR inhibitor were randomly assigned through an interactive voice and web response system to receive open-label dovitinib (500 mg orally according to a 5-days-on and 2-days-off schedule) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) in a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was stratified by risk group and region. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by masked central review. Efficacy was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01223027. FINDINGS: 284 patients were randomly assigned to the dovitinib group and 286 to the sorafenib group. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 7·9-14·6). Median PFS was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·5-3·9) in the dovitinib group and 3·6 months (3·5-3·7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·04; one-sided p=0·063). 280 patients in the dovitinib group and 284 in the sorafenib group received at least one dose of study drug. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypertriglyceridaemia (38 [14%]), fatigue (28 [10%]), hypertension (22 [8%]), and diarrhoea (20 [7%]) in the dovitinib group, and hypertension (47 [17%]), fatigue (24 [8%]), dyspnoea (21 [7%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (18 [6%]) in the sorafenib group. The most common serious adverse event was dyspnoea (16 [6%] and 15 [5%] in the dovitinib and sorafenib groups, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Dovitinib showed activity, but this was no better than that of sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma who had progressed on previous VEGF-targeted therapies and mTOR inhibitors. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Sequential mTOR inhibitor treatment with temsirolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma following failure of VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Agents targeting the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway, e. g. everolimus, can provide clinical benefit in pretreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but data from randomized trials on the sequential use of temsirolimus are lacking. We retrospectively studied the efficacy and safety of temsirolimus therapy following failure of rTKI therapy. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients treated with temsirolimus (25 mg/week) following progression on rTKI therapy were studied at four institutions. All patients had failed at least one prior rTKI therapy (sunitinib, n = 6; sorafenib, n = 1; both, n = 22). Over 80% had two or more prior therapies. Data on efficacy (response assessment, progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]) and safety (NCI-CTC) were analyzed. RESULTS: Adverse events occurred in 90% of patients with the majority being grade 1 (n = 4, 14%) or grade 2 (n = 12, 41%). Most grade 3/4 toxicities (n = 10, 34%) were manageable and included anemia (n = 4, 14%), leukopenia/neutropenia (n = 2, 7%), hyperglycemia (n = 1, 3%), acidosis/alkalosis (n = 2, 7%), and infection (n = 1, 3%). One patient discontinued temsirolimus for grade 3 pneumonitis. Median (range) PFS and OS were 5.1 months (1-10.4) and 18.0 months (12.6-23.3), respectively. Best response included partial response (n = 1) and stable disease (n = 15) for a disease control rate of 55%, and disease progression of 45% (n = 13). CONCLUSIONS: Temsirolimus after rTKI failure appears to provide promising safety and efficacy comparable to other treatment options in pretreated patients with mRCC.

Sequence therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: comparison of common targeted treatment options following failure of receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The best sequence of targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has not been sufficiently defined. OBJECTIVE: To describe the efficacy and toxicity of sequential everolimus (EV) versus receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (rTKI) following failure of first rTKI treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of 108 patients receiving rTKI or EV after progression on rTKI therapy at two German academic centres. INTERVENTION: Sequence of systemic targeted treatment with sunitinib (n=85) or sorafenib (n=23) followed by EV (n=62) or another rTKI (n=46; sorafenib, n=35; sunitinib, n=11). MEASUREMENTS: We measured response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.0) and toxicity. Survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression) was conducted for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Main patient characteristics did not significantly differ by sequence of treatment groups (rTKI-rTKI vs rTKI-EV). Response rate following first rTKI failure was not significantly different between sequential therapies with a disease control rate of 51.6% (EV) and 43.5% (rTKI). The corresponding median PFS was 3.6 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-5.4) for EV and 4.0 mo (3.2-4.9) for rTKI treatment. The estimated OS was longer for the rTKI-EV group (43 mo; 95% CI, 33.9-52.1) than for the rTKI-rTKI group (29 mo; 95% CI, 18.6-39.5; p=0.03), but this difference lost statistical significance in multivariable-adjusted analyses. Intrinsic rTKI resistance was independently associated with inferior subsequent PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.79; 95% CI, 1.15-3.62; p=0.015) and OS (HR: 6.54; 95% CI, 3.01-14.20; p<0.001). Limitations are the retrospective design, limited numbers of cases, and residual confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: The sequence therapies rTKI-EV and rTKI-rTKI may be equally efficacious in terms of PFS and response rate, whereas a tendency towards superior survival was observed for the rTKI-EV sequence. These data, particularly the potential benefit of an early change of mode of action, need confirmation in randomised comparative trials.

Intrinsic resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors is associated with poor clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Data on sequential therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and intrinsic resistance to receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (rTKI) treatment remains vague. METHODS: We retrospectively studied treatment characteristics and outcome of mRCC patients refractory to first rTKI therapy. RESULTS: Thirty-five mRCC patients (male, 18; female, 11) with primary resistance to first rTKI therapy (sunitinib, n = 28; sorafenib, n = 7) and a median treatment interval of 2.4 months (1 - 4.6) were identified. In 22 patients, progressive disease (PD) was determined by a new metastatic lesion. Of these, 16 patients received subsequent therapy with 12 patients remaining refractory and 4 patients achieving disease stabilization. In 13 patients continuous growth of existing metastatic lesions determined PD. Of these, 9 received sequential therapy with 6 achieving disease stabilization. Altogether, 25 patients were treated sequentially (rTKI: n = 15; mTOR-inhibitor: n = 10) and achieved a median PFS of 3.2 months (range, 1-16.6). Fifteen patients failed to respond to either line of therapy. Disease control was not associated with type of subsequent therapy. Median OS was 14.9 months (CI: 5.5-24.4). CONCLUSION: Intrinsic resistance to rTKI is associated with a low chance of response to sequential therapy and a poor prognosis in mRCC patients.

Can tyrosine kinase inhibitors be discontinued in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and a complete response to treatment? A multicentre, retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Discontinuation of treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and readministration in case of recurrence could improve quality of life (QoL) and reduce treatment costs for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in which a complete remission (CR) is achieved by medical treatment alone or with additional resection of residual metastases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether TKIs can be discontinued in these selected patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of medical records and imaging studies was performed on all patients with mRCC treated with TKIs (n=266) in five institutions. Patients with a CR under TKI treatment alone or with additional metastasectomy of residual disease following a partial response (PR), in which TKIs were discontinued, were included in the analysis. Outcome criteria analysed were time to recurrence of previous metastases, occurrence of new metastases, symptomatic progression, improvement of adverse events, and response to reexposure to TKIs. INTERVENTIONS: Sunitinib 50mg/day for 4 wk on and 2 wk off, sorafenib 800mg/day. MEASUREMENTS: Response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 12 cases: 5 CRs with sunitinib, 1 CR with sorafenib, and 6 surgical CRs with sunitinib followed by residual metastasectomy. Side-effects subsided in all patients off treatment. At a median follow-up of 8.5 mo (range: 4-25) from TKI discontinuation, 7 of 12 patients remained without recurrence and 5 had recurrent disease, with new metastases in 3 cases. Median time to progression was 6 mo (range: 3-8). Readministration of TKI was effective in all cases. The study is limited by small numbers and retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation of TKI in patients with mRCC and CR carries the risk of progression with new metastases and potential complications. Further investigation in a larger cohort of patients is warranted before such an approach can be regarded as safe.

Managing side effects of angiogenesis inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma.

Anti-angiogenetic agents are currently considered standard therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) for the majority of the patients. In contrast to immuno- or chemotherapy, the inhibition of specific signaling pathways has been considered essentially non-toxic. The advance of these tyrosine kinase inhibitors into clinical practice has led to a more detailed understanding of their targets in both, the tumor and the patient. At the advent of targeted therapies, oncologists are in the process of developing surveillance strategies tailored for specific side effects of individual classes of agents to the individual needs of patients. In the current article, the significance of adverse events and their management in RCC patients is reviewed in order to guide the clinical oncologist through patient surveillance and treatment of adverse events.