Cabozantinib monotherapy for advanced adrenocortical carcinoma: a single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare malignancy with poor response to systemic chemotherapy. Mitotane is the only approved therapy for adrenocortical carcinoma. Cabozantinib is a multikinase inhibitor approved in multiple malignancies. This is the first prospective trial to explore the anti-tumour activity, safety, and pharmacokinetic profile of cabozantinib in patients with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. METHODS: This investigator-initiated, single-arm, phase 2 trial in adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma was done at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA). Eligible patients had histologically confirmed adrenocortical carcinoma, were not candidates for surgery with curative intent, had measurable disease, had an estimated life expectancy of at least 3 months, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 with adequate organ function. Patients who had used mitotane within 6 months of study participation were required to have a serum mitotane level of less than 2 mg/L. Patients were given oral cabozantinib 60 mg daily with the option of dose reduction to manage adverse events. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 4 months, assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03370718, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2018, and May 31, 2021, we enrolled 18 patients (ten males and eight females), all of whom received at least one dose of study treatment. Of the 18 patients, eight (44%) had an ECOG performance status of 0, nine (50%) patients had a performance status of 1, and one (6%) patient had a performance status of 2. Median follow-up was 36·8 months (IQR 30·2-50·3). At 4 months, 13 (72·2%; 95% CI 46·5-90·3) of 18 patients had progression-free survival and median progression-free survival was 6 months (95% CI 4·3 to not reached). One patient remains on treatment. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 11 (61%) of 18 patients. The most common grade 3 adverse events were lipase elevation (three [17%] of 18 patients), elevated γ-glutamyl transferase concentrations (two [11%] patients), elevated alanine aminotransferase concentrations (two [11%] patients), hypophosphatemia (two [11%] patients), and hypertension (two [11%] patients). One (6%) of 18 patients had grade 4 hypertension. No treatment related deaths occurred on study. INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma showed promising efficacy with a manageable and anticipated safety profile. Further prospective studies with cabozantinib alone and in combination with immune checkpoint therapy are ongoing. FUNDING: Exelixis.

Reevaluating the role of platinum-based chemotherapy in the evolving treatment landscape for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Platinum-based chemotherapy has been the standard first-line (1L) treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) for decades, based on the proven efficacy and established safety profiles of cisplatin- and carboplatin-based regimens. With the emergence of novel regimens, it is important to reevaluate and contextualize the role of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab 1L maintenance in patients without disease progression following platinum-based chemotherapy was established as a standard 1L regimen based on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase III trial. More recently, the EV-302 phase III trial showed the superiority of 1L enfortumab vedotin (EV) + pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy, and the Checkmate 901 phase III trial showed the superiority of 1L nivolumab + cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/gemcitabine alone. These 2 regimens have now been included as standard 1L options in treatment guidelines for advanced UC. EV + pembrolizumab is now the preferred 1L treatment, and in locations where EV + pembrolizumab is not available or individual patients are not considered suitable, recommended options are platinum-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance or nivolumab + cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In this review, we discuss current treatment options for advanced UC recommended in guidelines, practical considerations with platinum-based chemotherapy, the role of avelumab 1L maintenance, recent phase III trials of EV + pembrolizumab and nivolumab + cisplatin/gemcitabine, safety profiles of recommended 1L treatments, and second-line treatment options.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Tivozanib in Heavily Pretreated Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib has been approved as a third-line or later therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma based on the TIVO-3 trial, which was conducted before immune checkpoint therapies (ICT), cabozantinib, and lenvatinib/everolimus became incorporated in the current sequential treatment paradigm for advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients with advanced ccRCC treated with tivozanib at MD Anderson Cancer Center during 6/2021-7/2023. A blinded radiologist assessed tumor response by RECIST v1.1. We assessed overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR) [percentage of all treated patients who achieved radiologic response or stable disease (SD) for ≥ 6 months], progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Of 30 analyzed patients, 23% had performance status ≥ 2; 47% had International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) poor-risk disease. Median number of prior therapies was 4 (range 1-8). All patients received prior ICT, 87% cabozantinib and 60% lenvatinib ± everolimus. Of 26 evaluable patients, 2 patients had confirmed partial response (ORR 7.7%); 5 patients had SD for ≥ 6 months (CBR 23.3%). Median PFS was 3.8 months (range 0.7-13.9); median OS was 14.1 months (range 0.3-28.5). Fifteen patients (50%) had ≥ 1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). There were 6 grade ≥ 3 TRAEs [hypertension, congestive heart failure (3), mucositis, and GI perforation (grade 5)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of heavily pretreated patients with advanced ccRCC, tivozanib yielded a modest clinical benefit in a minority of patients who received prior ICT, cabozantinib, and lenvatinib ± everolimus. TRAEs were consistent with previously published reports.

Venous thromboembolism in adrenocortical carcinoma: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of death in patients with cancer. Limited data exist about VTE in patients with adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC). The primary objective of this study was to identify the prevalence of VTE in a cohort of patients with ACC. Secondary objectives were to determine the impact of VTE events on overall survival (OS) and to describe the characteristics of VTE in patients with ACC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from 289 patients with ACC cared for at a major referral center from February 2010 to June 2022. RESULTS: VTE prevalence was 18.7% (54 events). Thirty patients (55.6%) had pulmonary embolism (PE); 12 patients (22.2%) had deep vein thrombosis (DVT); and 12 patients (22.2%) had both PE and DVT. VTE occurred after ACC diagnosis in 50 patients (92.6%) including 44 patients (88%) with stage 3 or 4 ACC. VTEs were CTCAE grade ≤2 in 32 cases (59.3%), grade 3 in 17 (31.5%), and grade 4 in 2 (3.7%). Thirteen patients (24%) died within 6 months after VTE diagnosis, although there was no statistically significant association between VTE and overall survival. CONCLUSION: Despite the potential to underestimate the prevalence of VTEs, we found a high frequency of VTE events in patients with ACC. A majority of VTEs occurred in the context of advanced ACC and we observed high short-term mortality. Further studies are needed to validate our findings and investigate mechanisms associated with VTE in ACC.

Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point. RESULTS: Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

Phase 1b Trial Evaluating Tolerability and Activity of Targeted Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibition in Localized Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: We initiated a biomarker-informed preoperative study of infigratinib, a fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor, in patients with localized upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), a population with high unmet needs and tumor with a high frequency of FGFR3 alterations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with localized UTUC undergoing ureteroscopy or nephroureterectomy/ureterectomy were enrolled on a phase 1b trial (NCT04228042). Once-daily infigratinib 125 mg by mouth × 21 days (28-day cycle) was given for 2 cycles. Tolerability was monitored by Bayesian design and predefined stopping boundaries. The primary endpoint was tolerability, and the secondary endpoint was objective response based on tumor mapping, done after endoscopic biopsy and post-trial surgery. Total planned enrollment: 20 patients. Targeted sequencing performed using a NovaSeq 6000 solid tumor panel. RESULTS: From May 2021 to November 2022, 14 patients were enrolled, at which point the trial was closed due to termination of all infigratinib oncology trials. Two patients (14.3%) had treatment-terminating toxicities, well below the stopping threshold. Responses occurred in 6 (66.7%) of 9 patients with FGFR3 alterations. Responders had median tumor size reduction of 67%, with 3 of 5 patients initially planned for nephroureterectomy/ureterectomy converted to ureteroscopy. Median follow-up in responders was 24.7 months (14.9-28.9). CONCLUSIONS: In this first trial of targeted therapy for localized UTUC, FGFR inhibition was well tolerated and had significant activity in FGFR3 altered tumors. Renal preservation was enabled in a substantial proportion of participants. These data support the design of a biomarker-driven phase 2 trial of FGFR3 inhibition in this population with significant unmet clinical needs.

Development of a Strategic Initiative at MD Anderson Cancer Center to Improve Outcomes in Immune-Related Adverse Events.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the treatment paradigm for many cancer types. The clinical use of ICIs is increasing rapidly, including in combinations associated with increased risk of toxicities, termed "immune-related adverse events" (irAEs). Therefore, MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) in Houston, Texas has proactively responded by developing a priority endeavor known as the Immuno-Oncology Toxicity (IOTOX) initiative. This strategic initiative aims to facilitate the seamless integration of key domains: (1) standardized clinical practice and innovative decision toolsets; (2) patient and provider education; and (3) a comprehensive clinical and translational research platform. The ultimate goal of this initiative is to develop and disseminate clinical best practices and biologic insights into irAEs to improve outcomes of patients with irAEs at MDACC and in the wider oncology community.

Incidence and Geographical Distribution of Adrenocortical Carcinoma: Retrospective Analysis of a State Cancer Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignancy without established association with environmental risk factors. ACC incidence is stable based on large surgical databases while referral centers data reported increasing number of cases seen. We studied ACC incidence and distribution at a county level to find potential ACC "hot spots" that could be linked to environmental exposures. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Texas Cancer Registry that included ACC patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2018. County-level heatmaps were created and compared with breast, prostate, and lung cancer. RESULTS: We identified 448 ACC cases during the study period. Cases were registered in 110 of the 254 counties (43.3%) in Texas, representing 92.74% of the total population. The median incidence was 23 new cases/y (range 14-33). The mean population-adjusted ACC incidence rate was 0.104 per 100 000 per year (standard deviation 0.005; 95% CI, 0.092-0.116). Seven counties (6.3%) accounted for 215 (48.0%) cases, with more than 10 cases each and median standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 0.1 (range, 0.0-0.9). One hundred three counties (93.7%) accounted for the remaining 233 cases (52%), with fewer than 10 cases per county. The highest standardized incidence ratios were found in counties with a median population of fewer than 14 000 residents and with only one reported case. CONCLUSION: Our analysis is the first report to create ACC heatmap and could not detect any geographic clustering of ACC in Texas. The incidence of ACC remained stable and consistent with data from other large databases.

Treatment Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma With Sarcomatoid and/or Rhabdoid Dedifferentiation After Progression on Immune Checkpoint Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic RCC with sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid (S/R) dedifferentiation is an aggressive disease associated with improved response to immune checkpoint therapy (ICT). The outcomes of patients treated with VEGFR-targeted therapies (TT) following ICT progression have not been investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 57 patients with sarcomatoid (S), rhabdoid (R), or sarcomatoid plus rhabdoid (S + R) dedifferentiation who received any TT after progression on ICT at an academic cancer center. Clinical endpoints of interest included time on TT, overall survival (OS) from initiation of TT, and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST version 1.1. Multivariable models adjusted for epithelial histology, IMDC risk, prior VEGFR TT, and inclusion of cabozantinib in the post-ICT TT regimen. RESULTS: 29/57 patients had S dedifferentiation and 19 had R dedifferentiation. The most frequently used TT was cabozantinib (43.9%) followed by selective VEGFR TT (22.8%). The median time on TT was 6.4 months for all, 6.1 months for those with S dedifferentiation, 15.6 months for R dedifferentiation, and 6.1 months for S + R dedifferentiation. Median OS from initiation of TT was 24.9 months for the entire cohort, and the ORR was 20.0%. Patients with R dedifferentiation had significantly longer time on TT than those with S dedifferentiation (HR 0.44, 95% CI, 0.21-0.94). IMDC risk was associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of patients with S/R dedifferentiation derive clinical benefit from TT after they have progressive disease on ICT. Patients with R dedifferentiation appeared to derive more benefit from TT than those with S dedifferentiation.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Suppress Hepatitis C Virus Replication in Infected Patients With Solid Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Data are scarce regarding the virologic impact and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We examined the virologic impact of ICI in HCV-infected patients with solid tumors and their safety. METHODS: HCV-infected patients with solid tumor treated with ICI at our institution between April 26, 2016, and January 5, 2022, were enrolled in a prospective observational study. The primary outcomes were ICI-induced changes in HCV viremia (HCV inhibition and HCV reactivation) and safety of ICI. RESULTS: We enrolled 52 consecutive patients with solid tumors treated with ICI. Most were men (41; 79%), White (31; 59%), without cirrhosis (34; 65%), and with HCV genotype 1 (40; 77%). Four patients (7.7%) experienced HCV inhibition while receiving ICI including 1 patient who developed undetectable viremia for 6 months in the absence of direct-acting antivirals (DAA). Two patients (4%) developed HCV reactivation, both while receiving immunosuppressive therapy for ICI-related toxic effects. Adverse events occurred in 36 patients (69%), and 39 of the 47 adverse events (83%) were grade 1-2. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 8 patients (15%), and in all cases, they were related to ICI, not to HCV. No HCV-associated liver failure or death occurred. DISCUSSION: Inhibition of HCV replication with virologic cure can develop in patients receiving ICI without DAA. HCV reactivation occurs primarily in patients receiving immunosuppressants for ICI-related toxic effects. ICI are safe in HCV-infected patients with solid tumors. Chronic HCV infection should not be considered a contraindication for ICI therapy.

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (CheckMate 9ER): long-term follow-up results from an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of CheckMate 9ER, nivolumab plus cabozantinib showed superior progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (median follow-up of 18·1 months). Here, we report extended follow-up of overall survival and updated efficacy and safety. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was done in 125 hospitals and cancer centres across 18 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed by the investigator, any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk category, and available tumour tissue for PD-L1 testing. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib (40 mg) orally once daily or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily (4 weeks per 6-week cycle). Randomisation, stratified by IMDC risk status, tumour PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, was done by permuted block within each stratum using a block size of four, via an interactive response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint (reported here as the preplanned final analysis according to the protocol). Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This ongoing study, closed to recruitment, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 328 to the sunitinib group. With an extended follow-up (data cutoff of June 24, 2021; median 32·9 months [IQR 30·4-35·9]), median overall survival was 37·7 months (95% CI 35·5-not estimable) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 34·3 months (29·0-not estimable) in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·55-0·90], p=0·0043) and updated median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (12·8-19·8) versus 8·3 months (7·0-9·7; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·46-0·68], p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 208 (65%) of 320 patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus 172 (54%) of 320 with sunitinib. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (40 [13%] of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 39 [12%] of 320 in the sunitinib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (25 [8%] vs 26 [8%]), and diarrhoea (22 [7%] vs 15 [5%]). Grade 3-4 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 70 (22%) of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 31 (10%) of 320 in the cabozantinib group. One additional treatment-related death occurred with sunitinib (sudden death). INTERPRETATION: With extended follow-up and preplanned final overall survival analysis per protocol, nivolumab plus cabozantinib demonstrated improved efficacy versus sunitinib, further supporting the combination in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Definitive radiotherapy for extracranial oligoprogressive metastatic renal cell carcinoma as a strategy to defer systemic therapy escalation.

OBJECTIVE: To study whether delivering definitive radiotherapy (RT) to sites of oligoprogression in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) enabled deferral of systemic therapy (ST) changes without compromising disease control or survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients with mRCC who received RT to three or fewer sites of extracranial progressive disease between 2014 and 2019 at a large tertiary cancer centre. Inclusion criteria were: (1) controlled disease for ≥3 months before oligoprogression, (2) all oligoprogression sites treated with a biologically effective dose of ≥100 Gy, and (3) availability of follow-up imaging. Time-to-event end-points were calculated from the start of RT. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were identified (median follow-up 22 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19-32 months), with oligoprogressive lesions in lung/mediastinum (n = 35), spine (n = 30), and non-spine bone (n = 5). The most common systemic therapies before oligoprogression were none (n = 33), tyrosine kinase inhibitor (n = 23), and immunotherapy (n = 13). At 1 year, the local control rate was 96% (95% CI 87-99%); progression-free survival (PFS), 52% (95% CI 40-63%); and overall survival, 91% (95% CI 82-96%). At oligoprogression, ST was escalated (n = 16), maintained (n = 49), or discontinued (n = 7), with corresponding median (95% CI) PFS intervals of 19.7 (8.2-27.2) months, 10.1 (6.9-13.2) months, and 9.8 (2.4-28.9) months, respectively. Of the 49 patients maintained on the same ST at oligoprogression, 21 did not subsequently have ST escalation. CONCLUSION: Patients with oligoprogressive mRCC treated with RT had comparable PFS regardless of ST strategy, suggesting that RT may be a viable approach for delaying ST escalation. Randomised controlled trials comparing treatment of oligoprogression with RT vs ST alone are needed.

Definitive radiotherapy in lieu of systemic therapy for oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma: a single-arm, single-centre, feasibility, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of radiotherapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma is controversial. We prospectively tested the feasibility and efficacy of radiotherapy to defer systemic therapy for patients with oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: This single-arm, phase 2, feasibility trial was done at one centre in the USA (The MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA). Patients (aged ≥18 years) with five or fewer metastatic lesions, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0-2, and no more than one previous systemic therapy (if this therapy was stopped at least 1 month before enrolment) without limitations on renal cell carcinoma histology were eligible for inclusion. Patients were treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (defined as ≤5 fractions with ≥7 Gy per fraction) to all lesions and maintained off systemic therapy. When lesion location precluded safe stereotactic body radiotherapy, patients were treated with hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy regimes consisting of 60-70 Gy in ten fractions or 52·5-67·5 Gy in 15 fractions. Additional rounds of radiotherapy were allowed to treat subsequent sites of progression. Co-primary endpoints were feasibility (defined as all planned radiotherapy completed with <7 days unplanned breaks) and progression-free survival. All efficacy analyses were intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed in the as-treated population. A second cohort, with the aim of assessing the feasibility of sequential stereotactic body radiotherapy alone in patients with low-volume metastatic disease, was initiated and will be reported separately. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03575611. FINDINGS: 30 patients (six [20%] women) were enrolled from July 13, 2018, to Sept 18, 2020. All patients had clear cell histology and had a nephrectomy before enrolment. All patients completed at least one round of radiotherapy with less than 7 days of unplanned breaks. At a median follow-up of 17·5 months (IQR 13·2-24·6), median progression-free survival was 22·7 months (95% CI 10·4-not reached; 1-year progression-free survival 64% [95% CI 48-85]). Three (10%) patients had severe adverse events: two grade 3 (back pain and muscle weakness) and one grade 4 (hyperglycaemia) adverse events were observed. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Sequential radiotherapy might facilitate deferral of systemic therapy initiation and could allow sustained systemic therapy breaks for select patients with oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Anna Fuller Foundation, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), and the National Cancer Institute.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with either treatment-naive or previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (Study 111/KEYNOTE-146): a phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), there is an unmet need for options to address disease progression during or after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib are active as monotherapies in RCC; thus, we aimed to evaluate the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in these patients. METHODS: We report results of the metastatic RCC cohort from an open-label phase 1b/2 study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients aged at least 18 years with selected solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Oral lenvatinib at 20 mg was given once daily along with intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg once every 3 weeks. Patients remained on study drug treatment until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Efficacy was analysed in patients with clear cell metastatic RCC receiving study drug by previous therapy grouping: treatment naive, previously treated ICI naive (previously treated with at least one line of therapy but not with an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 ICI), and ICI pretreated (ie, anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1) patients. Safety was analysed in all enrolled and treated patients. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate at week 24 per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (irRECIST) by investigator assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02501096) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT2017-000300-26), and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between July 21, 2015, and Oct 16, 2019, 145 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients had non-clear cell RCC and were excluded from the efficacy analysis (one in the treatment-naive group and one in the ICI-pretreated group); thus, the population evaluated for efficacy comprised 143 patients (n=22 in the treatment-naive group, n=17 in the previously treated ICI-naive group, and n=104 in the ICI-pretreated group). All 145 enrolled patients were included in the safety analysis. The median follow-up was 19·8 months (IQR 14·3-28·4). The number of patients with an objective response at week 24 by irRECIST was 16 (72·7%, 95% CI 49·8-89·3) of 22 treatment-naive patients, seven (41·2%, 18·4-67·1) of 17 previously treated ICI-naive patients, and 58 (55·8%, 45·7-65·5) of 104 ICI-pretreated patients. Of 145 patients, 82 (57%) had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events and ten (7%) had grade 4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (30 [21%] of 145 patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 36 (25%) patients, and there were three treatment-related deaths (upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sudden death, and pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed encouraging antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile and might be an option for post-ICI treatment of metastatic RCC. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Outcomes of patients with intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received their first cycle of nivolumab and ipilimumab in the hospital because of symptomatic disease: The MD Anderson Cancer Center experience.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) is an approved therapy for patients with intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Clinical factors that guide the selection of this regimen for patients with mRCC are urgently needed. We retrospectively analyzed medical records of patients with mRCC who were hospitalized at MD Anderson Cancer Center because of cancer-related symptoms and received their first cycle of nivo/ipi in the inpatient setting. Clinical parameters, including demographics, histology, clinical history, response, and survival, were collected. The 4-month survival probability, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Between November 2017 and 21 June 2020 patients were identified that fit the search: 19 patients (91%) had poor-risk disease based on the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score; 17 patients (81%) had ≥4 risk factors; and 9 patients (43%) had sarcomatoid features on histology. Shortness of breath (28%) and abdominal pain (19%) were the two most common reasons for hospitalization. Partial response was achieved in 14% (3/21) of patients. Median PFS for all patients was 1.7 months (95% CI 0-3.9); median OS for all patients was 1.7 months (95% CI 0-4.2); and the 4-month survival probability was 36% (95% CI 25%-47%). In this retrospective study, patients with intermediate-risk or poor-risk mRCC who are hospitalized at a large tertiary referral center for cancer-related symptoms derive limited clinical benefit from nivo/ipi when started in the inpatient setting. Alternative, more effective systemic therapies should be considered for these patients.

Results of a multicenter, phase 2 study of nivolumab and ipilimumab for patients with advanced rare genitourinary malignancies.

BACKGROUND: In this multicenter, single-arm, multicohort, phase 2 trial, the efficacy of nivolumab and ipilimumab was evaluated in patients with advanced rare genitourinary cancers, including bladder and upper tract carcinoma of variant histology (BUTCVH), adrenal tumors, platinum-refractory germ cell tumors, penile carcinoma, and prostate cancer of variant histology (NCT03333616). METHODS: Patients with rare genitourinary malignancies and no prior immune checkpoint inhibitor exposure were enrolled. Patients received nivolumab at 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks for 4 doses, and this was followed by 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled at 6 institutions between April 2018 and July 2019 in 3 cohorts: BUTCVH (n = 19), adrenal tumors (n = 18), and other tumors (n = 18). The median follow-up was 9.9 months (range, 1 to 21 months). Twenty-eight patients (51%) received 4 doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab; 25 patients received nivolumab maintenance for a median of 4 cycles (range, 1-18 cycles). The ORR for the entire study was 16% (80% confidence interval, 10%-25%); the ORR in the BUTCVH cohort, including 2 complete responses, was 37%, and it was 6% in the other 2 cohorts. Twenty-two patients (40%) developed treatment-related grade 3 or higher toxicities; 24% (n = 13) required high-dose steroids (≥40 mg of prednisone or the equivalent). Grade 5 events occurred in 3 patients; 1 death was treatment related. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in objective responses in a subset of patients with rare genitourinary malignancies, especially those with BUTCVH. An additional cohort exploring their activity in genitourinary tumors with neuroendocrine differentiation is ongoing. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with rare cancers are often excluded from studies and have limited treatment options. Fifty-five patients with rare tumors of the genitourinary system were enrolled from multiple sites and were treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab, a regimen used for kidney cancer. The regimen showed activity in some patients, particularly those with bladder or upper tract cancers of unusual or variant histology; 37% of those patients responded to therapy. Additional studies are ongoing to better determine who benefits the most from this combination.

Lenvatinib with or Without Everolimus in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma After Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Lenvatinib (Len) plus everolimus (Eve) is an approved therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after first-line vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs), but limited data exist on the efficacy of Len ± Eve after progression on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and VEGFR-TKIs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients with mRCC at our institution who were treated with Len ± Eve after ICI and VEGFR-TKI. A blinded radiologist assessed objective response as defined by RECIST version 1.1. Descriptive statistics and the Kaplan-Meier method were used. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were included in the analysis. Of these patients, 81.8% had clear-cell histology (ccRCC), and 76.4% had International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium intermediate-risk disease. Median number of prior therapies was four (range, 2-10); all patients had prior ICIs and VEGFR-TKIs, and 80% were previously treated with ICI and at least two VEGFR-TKIs, including cabozantinib. One patient (1.8%) achieved a complete response, and 11 patients (20.0%) achieved a partial response, for an overall response rate (ORR) of 21.8%; 35 patients (63.6%) achieved stable disease. In all patients, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-9.4) and median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months (95% CI, 8.8-16.0). In patients with ccRCC, ORR was 24.4%, PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.0-10.5), and OS was 11.7 months (95% CI, 7.9-16.1). 50.9% of patients required dose reductions and 7.3% discontinued treatment because of toxicity. CONCLUSION: Len ± Eve demonstrated meaningful clinical activity and tolerability in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC after disease progression with prior ICIs and VEGFR-TKIs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As the therapeutic landscape for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma continues to evolve, this single-center, retrospective review highlights the real-world efficacy of lenvatinib with or without everolimus in heavily pretreated patients. This article supports the use of lenvatinib with or without everolimus as a viable salvage strategy for patients whose disease progresses after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies, including cabozantinib.

The evolving treatment landscape of advanced urothelial carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Bladder cancer is the 10th most common cancer in the world and the 6th most common cancer among men. In the past few years, several new agents have been approved for the treatment of urothelial tumors. In this paper, we review the evolving treatment landscape of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). RECENT FINDINGS: Since 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved five immunotherapies targeting programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death 1 legend, an antinectin-4 antibody drug conjugate (ADC), and a fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor for the treatment of patients with advanced UC. Moreover, there are multiple targeted agents, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), ADCs, and their combinations currently being tested in clinical studies with the goal of obtaining FDA approval. SUMMARY: Precision oncology efforts continue to advance our understanding of the UC biology and transform the existing treatment paradigms. An enlarging arsenal of treatment options promises further personalization of UC therapy.

Landscape of Immunotherapy in Genitourinary Malignancies.

The past decade has witnessed a revolution in the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of multiple tumor types, including genitourinary cancers. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have notably improved the treatment outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and metastatic urothelial carcinoma. In prostate cancer, the role of immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors is not yet established except for microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) tumors. Other immunotherapeutic approaches that have been explored in these malignancies include cytokines, vaccines, and cellular therapy. Ongoing studies are exploring the use of immunotherapy combinations as well as combination with chemotherapy and targeted therapy in these types of tumors. The use of immunotherapy beyond the metastatic setting is an active area of research. Moreover, there is great interest in biomarker development to predict response to immunotherapy and risk of toxicity. This book chapter is a comprehensive review of immunotherapeutic approaches, both approved and investigational, for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and prostate cancer.

Nivolumab for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (nccRCC): A Single-Institutional Experience and Literature Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab alone and in combination with ipilimumab is approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who received prior vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKI) and those who are treatment naive, respectively. However, the clinical activity of nivolumab in non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) is unknown, as these patients were excluded from the trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients who received nivolumab for nccRCC and ccRCC with >20% rhabdoid with the primary endpoint to assess the objective response rate (ORR). We assessed radiographic response using RECIST, v1.1. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We also reviewed the literature to identify studies reporting on the clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in nccRCC, and performed a meta-analysis of proportions for ORR and disease control rate (DCR). RESULTS: Twelve patients (30%) had papillary histology, 11 (27.5%) had unclassified, 8 (20%) had ccRCC with rhabdoid component, 5 (12.5%) had chromophobe, 3 (7.5%) had translocation, and 1 (2.5%) had mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma. Overall, seven patients (21.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.7%-37.9%) had an objective response, including three patients (8.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9%-23.7%) who achieved a complete remission. At a median follow-up of 24.5 monoths (95% CI, 17.7-32.6), median PFS was 4.9 monoths (95% CI, 3.53-10.27) and median OS was 21.7 monoths (95% CI, 7.83 mo to not reached). There were no treatment-related deaths. We also identified two retrospective studies reporting best ORR in patients with nccRCC receiving PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade. The ORR and DCR for the total cohort were, respectively, 18.6% (95% CI, 11.9%-26.4%) and 53.4% (95% CI, 44.2%-62.5%). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab demonstrated activity in unclassified nccRCC and ccRCC with >20% rhabdoid; further randomized clinical trials are warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article reports on the clinical activity and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-clear cell kidney cancer. The retrospective data with the meta-analysis provides a summary that will help guide the treatment of this rare and heterogeneous group of kidney cancers.