Overall Survival with Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy after surgery for renal-cell carcinoma was approved on the basis of a significant improvement in disease-free survival in the KEYNOTE-564 trial. Whether the results regarding overall survival from the third prespecified interim analysis of the trial would also favor pembrolizumab was uncertain. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had an increased risk of recurrence after surgery to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year) or until recurrence, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. A significant improvement in disease-free survival according to investigator assessment (the primary end point) was shown previously. Overall survival was the key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab and 498 to receive placebo. As of September 15, 2023, the median follow-up was 57.2 months. The disease-free survival benefit was consistent with that in previous analyses (hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.87). A significant improvement in overall survival was observed with pembrolizumab as compared with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.87; P = 0.005). The estimated overall survival at 48 months was 91.2% in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 86.0% in the placebo group; the benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Pembrolizumab was associated with a higher incidence of serious adverse events of any cause (20.7%, vs. 11.5% with placebo) and of grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to pembrolizumab or placebo (18.6% vs. 1.2%). No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant pembrolizumab was associated with a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival, as compared with placebo, among participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at increased risk for recurrence after surgery. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).

Belzutifan versus Everolimus for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Belzutifan, a hypoxia-inducible factor 2α inhibitor, showed clinical activity in clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in early-phase studies. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, active-controlled trial, we enrolled participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies and randomly assigned them, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive 120 mg of belzutifan or 10 mg of everolimus orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. The key secondary end point was the occurrence of an objective response (a confirmed complete or partial response). RESULTS: A total of 374 participants were assigned to belzutifan, and 372 to everolimus. At the first interim analysis (median follow-up, 18.4 months), the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in both groups; at 18 months, 24.0% of the participants in the belzutifan group and 8.3% in the everolimus group were alive and free of progression (two-sided P = 0.002, which met the prespecified significance criterion). A confirmed objective response occurred in 21.9% of the participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.8 to 26.5) in the belzutifan group and in 3.5% (95% CI, 1.9 to 5.9) in the everolimus group (P<0.001, which met the prespecified significance criterion). At the second interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.7 months), the median overall survival was 21.4 months in the belzutifan group and 18.1 months in the everolimus group; at 18 months, 55.2% and 50.6% of the participants, respectively, were alive (hazard ratio for death, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.07; two-sided P = 0.20, which did not meet the prespecified significance criterion). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 61.8% of the participants in the belzutifan group (grade 5 in 3.5%) and in 62.5% in the everolimus group (grade 5 in 5.3%). Adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment in 5.9% and 14.7% of the participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Belzutifan showed a significant benefit over everolimus with respect to progression-free survival and objective response in participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. Belzutifan was associated with no new safety signals. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; LITESPARK-005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04195750.).

Patient-Reported Outcomes in KEYNOTE-564: Adjuvant Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) enrolled in the phase III KEYNOTE-564 trial (NCT03142334), disease-free survival (DFS) following nephrectomy was prolonged with use of adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy versus placebo. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide an important measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and can complement efficacy and safety results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In KEYNOTE-564, 994 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg (n = 496) or placebo (n = 498) intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤17 cycles. Patients who received ≥1 dose of treatment and completed ≥1 HRQoL assessment were included in this analysis. HRQoL end points were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, FKSI-DRS, and EQ VAS. Prespecified and exploratory PRO end points were mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score, EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function subscale score, and FKSI-DRS score. RESULTS: No clinically meaningful difference in least squares mean scores for pembrolizumab versus placebo were observed at week 52 for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (-2.5; 95% CI -5.2 to 0.1), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (-0.87; 95% CI -2.7 to 1.0), and FKSI-DRS (-0.7; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.1). Most PRO scores remained stable or improved for the EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (pembrolizumab, 54.3%; placebo, 67.5%), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (pembrolizumab, 64.7%; placebo, 68.8%), and FKSI-DRS (pembrolizumab, 58.2%; placebo, 66.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab did not result in deterioration of HRQoL. These findings together with the safety and efficacy findings support adjuvant pembrolizumab treatment following nephrectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03142334.

Adjuvant Pembrolizumab after Nephrectomy in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with renal-cell carcinoma who undergo nephrectomy have no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence. METHODS: In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who were at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy, to receive either adjuvant pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year). The primary end point was disease-free survival according to the investigator's assessment. Overall survival was a key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab, and 498 to receive placebo. At the prespecified interim analysis, the median time from randomization to the data-cutoff date was 24.1 months. Pembrolizumab therapy was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival than placebo (disease-free survival at 24 months, 77.3% vs. 68.1%; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.87; P = 0.002 [two-sided]). The estimated percentage of patients who remained alive at 24 months was 96.6% in the pembrolizumab group and 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.96). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 32.4% of the patients who received pembrolizumab and in 17.7% of those who received placebo. No deaths related to pembrolizumab therapy occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab treatment led to a significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo after surgery among patients with kidney cancer who were at high risk for recurrence. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as post-nephrectomy adjuvant therapy for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-564): 30-month follow-up analysis of a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints. METHODS: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7-36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50-0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (<1%) participant in the placebo group. No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab. INTERPRETATION: Updated results from KEYNOTE-564 support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy as a standard of care for participants with renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (BIONIKK): a biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported a 35-gene expression classifier identifying four clear-cell renal cell carcinoma groups (ccrcc1 to ccrcc4) with different tumour microenvironments and sensitivities to sunitinib in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Efficacy profiles might differ with nivolumab and nivolumab-ipilimumab. We therefore aimed to evaluate treatment efficacy and tolerability of nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) in patients according to tumour molecular groups. METHODS: This biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial included patients from 15 university hospitals or expert cancer centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had previously untreated metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of varying sizes to receive either nivolumab or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc1 and ccrcc4 groups), or either a VEGFR-TKI or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc2 and ccrcc3 groups). Patients assigned to nivolumab-ipilimumab received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to nivolumab received intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to VEGFR-TKIs received oral sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks every 6 weeks) or oral pazopanib (800 mg daily continuously). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate by investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the population who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02960906, and with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2016-003099-28, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2017, and July 18, 2019, 303 patients were screened for eligibility, 202 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment (61 to nivolumab, 101 to nivolumab-ipilimumab, 40 to a VEGFR-TKI). In the nivolumab group, two patients were excluded due to a serious adverse event before the first study dose and one patient was excluded from analyses due to incorrect diagnosis. Median follow-up was 18·0 months (IQR 17·6-18·4). In the ccrcc1 group, objective responses were seen in 12 (29%; 95% CI 16-45) of 42 patients with nivolumab and 16 (39%; 24-55) of 41 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (odds ratio [OR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·25-1·56]). In the ccrcc4 group, objective responses were seen in seven (44%; 95% CI 20-70) of 16 patients with nivolumab and nine (50% 26-74) of 18 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·20-3·01]). In the ccrcc2 group, objective responses were seen in 18 (50%; 95% CI 33-67) of 36 patients with a VEGFR-TKI and 19 (51%; 34-68) of 37 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·95 [95% CI 0·38-2·37]). In the ccrcc3 group, no objective responses were seen in the four patients who received a VEGFR-TKI, and in one (20%; 95% CI 1-72) of five patients who received nivolumab-ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hepatic failure and lipase increase (two [3%] of 58 for both) with nivolumab, lipase increase and hepatobiliary disorders (six [6%] of 101 for both) with nivolumab-ipilimumab, and hypertension (six [15%] of 40) with a VEGFR-TKI. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in two (3%) patients in the nivolumab group, 38 (38%) in the nivolumab-ipilimumab group, and ten (25%) patients in the VEGFR-TKI group. Three deaths were treatment-related: one due to fulminant hepatitis with nivolumab-ipilimumab, one death from heart failure with sunitinib, and one due to thrombotic microangiopathy with sunitinib. INTERPRETATION: We demonstrate the feasibility and positive effect of a prospective patient selection based on tumour molecular phenotype to choose the most efficacious treatment between nivolumab with or without ipilimumab and a VEGFR-TKI in the first-line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, ARTIC.

Day-case robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: feasibility and preliminary results of a prospective evaluation (UroCCR-25 AMBU-REIN study).

PURPOSE: Robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is a minimally-invasive technique used to treat renal tumors. A clinical pathway and prospective research protocol (AMBU-REIN) were specifically set up to establish and assess the routine use of day-case RPN. METHODS: The AMBU-REIN study was conducted in the framework of the French research network on kidney cancer UroCCR (NCT03293563). We present our initial experience of patients treated using day-case RPN and released from our hospital on the same day, focusing on patient selection, safety and patient satisfaction using the EVAN-G validated questionnaire. RESULTS: Between September 2016 and September 2019, 429 RPN were performed and 82 patients were consecutively selected for day-case RPN. Patients were managed using transperitoneal RPN with off-clamp tumorectomy for 66/82 cases. Mean tumor size was 2.7 ± 1.2 cm. There were no immediate severe postoperative complications; 7/82 patients were kept under observation overnight and discharged the following day. The follow-up at day 30 indicated postoperative complications, readmissions, and mortality rates of 1.2, 1.2, and 0%, respectively. Next-day patient satisfaction questionnaires indicated that patients were generally highly satisfied, with a mean ± standard deviation global score of 83.6 ± 10.3%. "Attention" was rated the highest overall (mean 94.8 ± 10.5%), while "pain management" scored the lowest (61.2 ± 20.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective case series is the first to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of day-case RPN. For selected patients and through a dedicated, nurse-led clinical pathway, it provided a high level of patient satisfaction. Expected benefits on healthcare cost savings warrant further investigation.

Sunitinib Alone or after Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy has been the standard of care in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma for 20 years, supported by randomized trials and large, retrospective studies. However, the efficacy of targeted therapies has challenged this standard. We assessed the role of nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were receiving targeted therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with confirmed metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at presentation who were suitable candidates for nephrectomy to undergo nephrectomy and then receive sunitinib (standard therapy) or to receive sunitinib alone. Randomization was stratified according to prognostic risk (intermediate or poor) in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily in cycles of 28 days on and 14 days off every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were enrolled from September 2009 to September 2017. At this planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was 50.9 months, with 326 deaths observed. The results in the sunitinib-alone group were noninferior to those in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group with regard to overall survival (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.10; upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for noninferiority, ≤1.20). The median overall survival was 18.4 months in the sunitinib-alone group and 13.9 months in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group. No significant differences in response rate or progression-free survival were observed. Adverse events were as anticipated in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib alone was not inferior to nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were classified as having intermediate-risk or poor-risk disease. (Funded by Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and others; CARMENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930033 .).

Intra-database validation of case-identifying algorithms using reconstituted electronic health records from healthcare claims data.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis performances of case-identifying algorithms developed in healthcare database are usually assessed by comparing identified cases with an external data source. When this is not feasible, intra-database validation can present an appropriate alternative. OBJECTIVES: To illustrate through two practical examples how to perform intra-database validations of case-identifying algorithms using reconstituted Electronic Health Records (rEHRs). METHODS: Patients with 1) multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses and 2) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were identified in the French nationwide healthcare database (SNDS) using two case-identifying algorithms. A validation study was then conducted to estimate diagnostic performances of these algorithms through the calculation of their positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). To that end, anonymized rEHRs were generated based on the overall information captured in the SNDS over time (e.g. procedure, hospital stays, drug dispensing, medical visits) for a random selection of patients identified as cases or non-cases according to the predefined algorithms. For each disease, an independent validation committee reviewed the rEHRs of 100 cases and 100 non-cases in order to adjudicate on the status of the selected patients (true case/ true non-case), blinded with respect to the result of the corresponding algorithm. RESULTS: Algorithm for relapses identification in MS showed a 95% PPV and 100% NPV. Algorithm for mCRPC identification showed a 97% PPV and 99% NPV. CONCLUSION: The use of rEHRs to conduct an intra-database validation appears to be a valuable tool to estimate the performances of a case-identifying algorithm and assess its validity, in the absence of alternative.

The impact of sarcopenia on the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that sarcopenia is a significant predictive factor of worst outcomes and treatment-associated toxicities in patients with metastatic solid tumours. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between low muscle mass and clinical outcomes and immune-related severe toxicities (IrST) in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 261 consecutive metastatic solid tumour patients treated with ICIs were included in our study. Low muscle mass was defined as skeletal muscle index <41 cm2/m2 for females and <43 cm2/m2 for males if body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m2 or <53 cm2/m2 if BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. Severe toxicities (ST), including grade III-IV toxicities and side effects leading to treatment interruption, were recorded. RESULTS: The majority of patients (n = 179; 69%) included in this study had metastatic lung cancer. The prevalence of low muscle mass was 47%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 32.2 weeks for low muscle mass patients and 24.3 weeks for non-low muscle mass patients (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.055; p = 0.11). For low muscle mass and non-low muscle mass lung cancer patients, median PFS was 24.0 weeks and 18.8 weeks (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98; p = 0.04) and median overall survival was 50.7 weeks and 41.1 weeks (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.54-1.10, p = 0.15) respectively. Immune-related severe toxicities occurred in 3.3% and 9.4% of low muscle mass and non-low muscle mass patients respectively (adjusted OR, 0.69; 95% CI: 0.31-1.49; p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: No difference in outcomes and safety was observed for low muscle mass and non-low muscle mass patients treated with ICIs.