Belzutifan for Renal Cell Carcinoma in von Hippel-Lindau Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease have a high incidence of renal cell carcinoma owing to VHL gene inactivation and constitutive activation of the transcription factor hypoxia-inducible factor 2α (HIF-2α). METHODS: In this phase 2, open-label, single-group trial, we investigated the efficacy and safety of the HIF-2α inhibitor belzutifan (MK-6482, previously called PT2977), administered orally at a dose of 120 mg daily, in patients with renal cell carcinoma associated with VHL disease. The primary end point was objective response (complete or partial response) as measured according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, by an independent central radiology review committee. We also assessed responses to belzutifan in patients with non-renal cell carcinoma neoplasms and the safety of belzutifan. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 21.8 months (range, 20.2 to 30.1), the percentage of patients with renal cell carcinoma who had an objective response was 49% (95% confidence interval, 36 to 62). Responses were also observed in patients with pancreatic lesions (47 of 61 patients [77%]) and central nervous system hemangioblastomas (15 of 50 patients [30%]). Among the 16 eyes that could be evaluated in 12 patients with retinal hemangioblastomas at baseline, all (100%) were graded as showing improvement. The most common adverse events were anemia (in 90% of the patients) and fatigue (in 66%). Seven patients discontinued treatment: four patients voluntarily discontinued, one discontinued owing to a treatment-related adverse event (grade 1 dizziness), one discontinued because of disease progression as assessed by the investigator, and one patient died (of acute toxic effects of fentanyl). CONCLUSIONS: Belzutifan was associated with predominantly grade 1 and 2 adverse events and showed activity in patients with renal cell carcinomas and non-renal cell carcinoma neoplasms associated with VHL disease. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme and others; MK-6482-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03401788.).

Multicenter randomized trial of deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy in synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving checkpoint inhibitors: the NORDIC-SUN-Trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary tumor removal by cytoreductive nephrectomy in synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients has been investigated in the context of various treatment regimens. Two randomized controlled trials investigated the role and timing of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the era of targeted therapy and demonstrated that upfront nephrectomy should no longer be performed when patients require systemic therapy. Superiority of checkpoint immunotherapy agents has led to a paradigm change from targeted therapies to immunotherapy-based first-line treatment in patients with primary metastatic disease; thus, deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy needs to be verified in the immunotherapy setting. Furthermore, a need exists for personalizing treatment choices for the individual patient to avoid unnecessary overtreatment. METHODS/DESIGN: To explore the impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy in this patient group receiving checkpoint immunotherapy, we initiated a randomized, controlled trial comparing deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy with no surgery. The trial integrates a comprehensive translational research program with specimen sampling for biomarker analysis. DISCUSSION: The trial aims to show that deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy improves overall survival in patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and furthermore, to identify relevant biomarkers for personalized renal cancer management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03977571 June 6, 2019.

Adjuvant atezolizumab versus placebo for patients with renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence following resection (IMmotion010): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for locoregional renal cell carcinoma is surgery, but many patients experience recurrence. The objective of the current study was to determine if adjuvant atezolizumab (vs placebo) delayed recurrence in patients with an increased risk of recurrence after resection. METHODS: IMmotion010 is a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial conducted in 215 centres in 28 countries. Eligible patients were patients aged 18 years or older with renal cell carcinoma with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component and increased risk of recurrence. After nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo (both intravenous) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice-web response system. Stratification factors were disease stage (T2 or T3a vs T3b-c or T4 or N+ vs M1 no evidence of disease), geographical region (north America [excluding Mexico] vs rest of the world), and PD-L1 status on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (<1% vs ≥1% expression). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who were randomised, regardless of whether study treatment was received. The safety-evaluable population included all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received any amount of study drug (ie, atezolizumab or placebo), regardless of whether a full or partial dose was received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03024996, and is closed to further accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 3, 2017, and Feb 15, 2019, 778 patients were enrolled; 390 (50%) were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 388 (50%) to the placebo group. At data cutoff (May 3, 2022), the median follow-up duration was 44·7 months (IQR 39·1-51·0). Median investigator-assessed disease-free survival was 57·2 months (95% CI 44·6 to not evaluable) with atezolizumab and 49·5 months (47·4 to not evaluable) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·93, 95% CI 0·75-1·15, p=0·50). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (seven [2%] patients who received atezolizumab vs 15 [4%] patients who received placebo), hyperglycaemia (ten [3%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (two [1%] vs seven [2%]). 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo had a serious adverse event. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy after resection for patients with renal cell carcinoma with increased risk of recurrence showed no evidence of improved clinical outcomes versus placebo. These study results do not support adjuvant atezolizumab for treatment of renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, a member of the Roche group.

Soluble CD163: a novel independent prognostic biomarker in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

The hemoglobin-haptoglobin scavenger receptor CD163 is present in both a membrane-bound form on monocytes and macrophages (mCD163) and a shed soluble circulating form (sCD163). CD163 is a well-described marker of M2-like tumor-associated macrophages, but in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), monocyte mCD163 and serum sCD163 levels have not previously been investigated and associated with patient overall survival (OS). Here, we report mCD163 expression on peripheral blood monocytes, as well as sCD163 serum levels, in samples from 89 patients newly diagnosed with mRCC and 20 healthy controls. We found that in mRCC patients, compared to healthy controls, monocyte mCD163 levels were reduced (P < 0.001) whereas serum sCD163 levels were increased (P = 0.004). Moreover, an inverse correlation between mCD163 and sCD163 levels (P = 0.04) was shown. In survival analyses, intermediary levels of monocyte mCD163 were associated with longest OS, compared to both lower and higher mCD163 levels, which were both associated with worse outcomes (P < 0.01). Further, higher levels of sCD163 at diagnosis were associated with poor OS in both univariate (P < 0.001) and multivariate analysis (HR = 1.28; 95%CI 1.09-1.50, P = 0.002). Importantly, stratification by low vs. high sCD163 was able to separate patients with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate risk (IMDCINT) into two subgroups with different OS (P = 0.03): IMDCINT-sCD163LOW showed survival similar to IMDCFAV patients, and IMDCINT-sCD163HIGH showed survival similar to IMDCPOOR patients. Thus, baseline sCD163 is a novel independent biomarker of OS in mRCC, and using sCD163 as an add-on biomarker may improve prognostic value for patients in the heterogenous IMDC intermediate group.

Late adverse events to iodinated contrast media in patients treated with IL-2: a safety report from the Danish Renal Carcinoma Group (DaRenCa) study - 1.

BACKGROUND: A higher incidence of late adverse events (LAEs) to iodinated contrast media in interleukin-2 (IL-2)-treated patients has been reported. PURPOSE: To assess the incidence of LAEs after administration of iodinated contrast media in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with IL-2. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to treatment with IL-2 and interferon-α with/without bevacizumab in the Danish Renal Carcinoma Group study - 1. Patients underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan at baseline, at one month, at three months, and every third month until RECIST 1.1 defined progression. LAEs due to iodinated contrast media were systematically registered according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events classification. RESULTS: In total, 89 patients were included and underwent a total of 507 contrast-enhanced CT scans. An overall incidence of 46 (9.1%) LAEs was observed in 38 of 89 (42.7%) patients; 3 LAEs at baseline (3.4% of all baseline scans), 39 (13.9%) LAEs during IL-2-based therapies, and 4 (2.9%) LAEs after termination of IL-based therapies. There was no difference in progression-free survival, overall survival, and treatment response in patients experiencing LAEs compared to patients without LAEs (P = 0.2, P = 0.5, and P = 0.6, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients with mRCC demonstrated a higher incidence of LAEs after administration of iodinated contrast during ongoing IL-2 therapy, indicating that iodinated contrast media may cause a recall phenomenon of IL-2 toxicities in patients with mRCC. Treatment with IL-2 should not be a contraindication for contrast-enhanced scans in patients with mRCC but expertise and vigilance are required.

Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

Early reduction in spectral dual-layer detector CT parameters as favorable imaging biomarkers in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To associate the early change in DL-CT parameters and HU with survival outcomes and treatment response in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: DL-CT scans were performed at baseline and after 1 month of checkpoint immunotherapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Scans were reconstructed to conventional CT and DL-CT series, and used for assessment of HU, iodine concentration (IC), and the effective atomic number (Zeffective) in the combined RECISTv.1.1 target lesions. The relative changes, defined as ΔIC(combined), ΔZeffective(combined), and ΔHU(combined), were associated with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). The reduction in the sum of diameters of target lesions ≥ 30% after 1 month was associated with OS, PFS, and ORR. RESULTS: Overall, 115 and 104 mRCC patients were included at baseline and 1 month, respectively. Median IC(combined) decreased from 2.3 to 1.2 mg/ml (p < 0.001), Zeffective(combined) from 8.5 to 8.0 (p < 0.001), and HU(combined) from 86.0 to 64.00 HU (p < 0.001). After multivariate adjustments, the largest reductions in ΔIC(combined) (HR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.24-0.94, p = 0.033) and ΔZeffective(combined) (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21-0.87, p = 0.019) were associated with favorable OS; the largest reduction in ΔZeffective(combined) was associated with higher response (OR = 2.79, 95% CI: 1.12-6.94, p = 0.027). The largest reduction in ΔHU(combined) was solely associated with OS in univariate analysis (HR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.23-0.91). Reduction in SOD ≥ 30% at 1 month was not associated with outcomes (p > 0.075). CONCLUSIONS: Early reductions at 1 month in ΔIC(combined) and ΔZeffective(combined) are associated with favorable outcomes in patients with mRCC. This information may reassure physicians and patients about treatment strategy. KEY POINTS: • Early reductions following 1 month of therapy in spectral dual-layer detector CT-derived iodine concentration and the effective atomic number (Zeffective) are independent biomarkers for better overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. • Early reduction after 1 month of therapy in the effective atomic number (Zeffective) is an independent imaging biomarker for better treatment response metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Prognostic Utility of Parameters Derived From Pretreatment Dual-Layer Spectral-Detector CT in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND. New therapies have emerged for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), though corresponding imaging markers are lacking. Dual-layer spectral-detector CT (DLCT) can quantify iodine concentration (IC) and effective atomic number (Zeffective), providing information beyond attenuation that may indicate mRCC prognosis. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess the utility of the DLCT-derived parameters IC and Zeffective for predicting mRCC treatment response and survival. METHODS. This prospective study enrolled 120 participants with mRCC from January 2018 to January 2020 who underwent DLCT, with reconstruction of IC and Zeffective maps, before treatment initiation. Final analysis included 115 participants (86 men, 29 women; median age, 65.1 years), incorporating 313 target lesions that were clinically selected using RECIST version 1.1 on arterial phase acquisitions of the chest and abdomen. Semiautomatic volumetric segmentation was performed of the target lesions. Voxels from all lesions were combined to a single histogram per patient. The median IC and Zeffective of the combined histograms were recorded. Measurements above and below the cohort median values were considered high and low, respectively. Univariable associations were explored between IC and Zeffective with objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Multivariable associations were explored between IC and ORR, PFS, and OS, adjusting for treatment (tyrosine kinase inhibitor vs checkpoint immunotherapy) and significant univariable predictors (including tumor histology and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium [IMDC] risk factors). RESULTS. At baseline, median IC was 2.26 mg/mL, and median Zeffective was 8.49. In univariable analysis, high IC and high Zeffective were associated with better ORR (both, odds ratio [OR] = 4.35; p = .001), better PFS (both, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51; p = .004), and better OS (both, HR = 0.38; p < .001). In multivariable models, high IC independently predicted better ORR (OR = 4.35, p = .001), better PFS (HR = 0.51, p = .004), and better OS (HR = 0.37, p < .001); neutrophilia independently predicted worse PFS (HR = 2.10, p = .004) and worse OS (HR = 2.28, p = .003). The estimated C-index for predicting OS using IMDC risk factors alone was 0.650 versus 0.687 when incorporating high attenuation and 0.692 when incorporating high IC or high Zeffective. CONCLUSION. High IC and high Zeffective are significant predictors of better treatment response and survival in mRCC. CLINICAL IMPACT. Baseline DLCT parameters may improve current mRCC prognostic models. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03616951.

Molecular analysis and favorable clinical outcomes in real-world patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Prior biomarker studies have mainly been restricted to advanced RCC patients treated in clinical trials or have had limited integration of immunotherapy features such as programmed death ligand (PD-L)-1 with gene expression signatures intended to capture other canonical pathways to confirm their prognostic value. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PD-L1 and PD-L2 by immunohistochemistry (IHC), PD-L2 messenger RNA (mRNA), and 10 gene expression profile (GEP) signatures targeting immune, angiogenesis and canonical pathways were analyzed in nephrectomy specimens from 227 advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and 42 non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) patients treated with targeted therapies including VEGF and mTOR inhibitors. Biomarker association with best overall response (BOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using multivariable modeling. Except for PD-L1 IHC and angiogenesis, tested with a nominal p-value of .05, multiplicity control was applied with a 0.1 significance level given limited experience in this setting. RESULTS: The strongest biomarker correlations were observed for hypoxia inducible factor (HIF)-2a and angiogenesis signatures (rho = 0.860 [ccRCC], 0.819 [nccRCC]); hypoxia and glycolysis signatures (rho = 0.943 [ccRCC], 0.973 [nccRCC]); PD-L2 mRNA and T-cell-inflamed GEP signatures (rho = 0.764 [ccRCC], 0.897 [nccRCC]); and PD-L2 mRNA and monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell signature (rho = 0.787 [ccRCC], 0.815 [nccRCC]). For ccRCC, higher angiogenesis expression was associated with improved BOR (OR:2.85 [95%CI:1.37, 5.93]), longer PFS (HR:0.61 [95%CI:0.45, 0.82]) and OS (HR:0.74 [95%CI:0.54, 1.00]); higher PD-L1 expression with shorter OS (HR:1.44 [95%CI:1.01, 2.07]). For nccRCC, there was more than a two-fold increased risk with longer OS associated with lower angiogenesis (HR:2.43 [95%CI:1.04, 5.68]), glycolysis (HR:7.03 [95%CI:1.51, 32.76]) and hypoxia (HR:8.83 [95%CI:1.69, 46.05]) gene signature expression. CONCLUSION: Data pointed at PD-L1 IHC and angiogenesis expression in ccRCC and hypoxia, glycolysis, and angiogenesis expression in nccRCC as potential prognostic factors. These findings may have implications for the design and interpretation of advanced RCC trials and to identify potential targets for combination therapy strategies.

GRade, Age, Nodes, and Tumor (GRANT) compared with Leibovich score to predict survival in localized renal cell carcinoma: A nationwide study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of Leibovich score versus GRade, Age, Nodes, and Tumor score in predicting disease recurrence in renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In total, 7653 patients diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma from 2010 to 2018 were captured in the nationwide DaRenCa database; 2652 underwent radical or partial nephrectomy and had full datasets regarding the GRade, Age, Nodes, and Tumor score and Leibovich score. Discrimination was assessed with a Cox regression model. The results were evaluated with concordance index analysis. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 40 months (interquartile range 24-56). Recurrence occurred in 17%, and 15% died. A significant proportion of patients (36%) had missing data for the calculation of the Leibovich score. Among 1957 clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients the distribution of GRade, Age, Nodes, and Tumor score of 0, 1, 2, or 3/4 was 21%, 56%, 21% and 1.4%, respectively, and for Leibovich score of low/intermediate/high this was 47%, 36% and 18%, respectively. A similar distribution was seen in 655 non-clear cell patients. Both Leibovich and GRade, Age, Nodes, and Tumor scores performed well in predicting outcomes for the favorable patient risk groups. The Leibovich score was better at predicting recurrence-free survival (concordance index 0.736 versus 0.643), but not overall survival (concordance index 0.657 versus 0.648). Similar results were obtained in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. CONCLUSION: GRade, Age, Nodes, and Tumor and Leibovich scores were validated in clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Leibovich score outperformed the GRade, Age, Nodes, and Tumor score in predicting recurrence-free survival and should remain the standard approach to risk stratify patients during follow-up when all data are available.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Outcomes of systemic targeted therapy in recurrent renal cell carcinoma treated with adjuvant sunitinib.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of rechallenge with sunitinib and other targeted therapies (TTs) in patitents with relapsed recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the advanced setting. METHODS: In this multi-institutional retrospective study, patients with relapsed RCC were rechallenged with sunitinib or other systemic TTs as a first-line therapeutic approach after failed adjuvant sunitinib treatment. Patient characteristics, treatments and clinical outcomes were recorded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 34 patients with relapses were recorded, and 25 of these (73.5%) were men. Twenty-five patients were treated with systemic TT: 65% of patients received TT against the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (including sunitinib), 21.7% received mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and 13% received immunotherapy. The median (interquartile range) time to relapse was 20.3 (5.2-20.4) months from diagnosis, and 7.5 months (1.0-8.5) from the end of adjuvant suntinib treatment. At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, 24 of the 25 patients had progressed on first-line systemic therapy. The median PFS was 12.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.78-18.2). There were no statistical differences in PFS between different treatments or sunitinib rechallenge. PFS was not statistically different in patients relapsing on or after adjuvant suntinib treatment (≤ 6 or >6 months after adjuvant suntinib ending). The ORR was 20.5%. The median OS was 29.1 months (95% CI 16.4-41.8). CONCLUSIONS: Rechallenge with sunitinib or other systemic therapies is still a feasible therapeutic option that provides patients with advanced or metastastic RCC with additional clinical benefits with regard to PFS and OS after failed response to adjuvant sunitinib.

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMmotion151): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821. FINDINGS: Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11·2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7·7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·57-0·96]; p=0·0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0·93 (0·76-1·14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Genentech Inc.

Real-World Assessment of Clinical Outcomes Among First-Line Sunitinib Patients with Clear Cell Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium Risk Group.

BACKGROUND: International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups are important when considering therapeutic options for first-line treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with clear cell mRCC initiating first-line sunitinib between 2010 and 2018 were included in this retrospective database study. Median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Outcomes were stratified by IMDC risk groups and evaluated for those in the combined intermediate and poor risk group and separately for those in the intermediate risk group with one versus two risk factors. RESULTS: Among 1,769 patients treated with first-line sunitinib, 318 (18%) had favorable, 1,031 (58%) had intermediate, and 420 (24%) had poor IMDC risk. Across the three risk groups, patients had similar age, gender, and sunitinib initiation year. Median TTD was 15.0, 8.5, and 4.2 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 7.1 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS was 52.1, 31.5, and 9.8 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 23.2 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS (35.1 vs. 21.9 months) and TTD (10.3 vs. 6.6 months) were significantly different between intermediate risk patients with one versus two risk factors. CONCLUSION: This real-world study found a median OS of 52 months for patients with favorable IMDC risk treated with first-line sunitinib, setting a new benchmark on clinical outcomes of clear cell mRCC. Analysis of intermediate risk group by one or two risk factors demonstrated distinct clinical outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This analysis offers a contemporary benchmark for overall survival (median, 52.1 months; 95% confidence interval, 43.4-61.2) among patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy in a real-world setting and classified as favorable risk according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification. This study demonstrates that clinical outcomes differ between IMDC risk groups as well as within the intermediate risk group based on the number of risk factors, thus warranting further consideration of risk group when counseling patients about therapeutic options and designing clinical trials.

Elevated neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio combined with hyponatremia indicate poor prognosis in renal cell carcinoma.

Background: Elevated neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and hyponatremia each predict poor prognosis in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Since no previous studies have looked at the combined effect of these two prognostic markers, we examined how NLR and hyponatremia combined associates with mortality and hypothesized that elevated NLR and hyponatremia at RCC diagnosis and at RCC recurrence indicate poorer prognosis.Material and methods: Using Danish medical registries 1999-2015, we included 970 patients from two regions with incident RCC and a measurement of NLR and sodium. NLR was categorized as ≤3.0 and >3.0 and sodium as < lower limit of normal (LLN) and ≥ LLN. Outcomes were survival after RCC diagnosis and first recurrence, respectively. We estimated absolute survival and hazard ratios (HR) using multivariate Cox regression.Results: At RCC diagnosis, 559 (57.6%) had NLR >3.0 and 240 (24.7%) had hyponatremia, the 5 year-survival rate was 35.2% in NLR > 3.0 vs. 69.2% in NLR ≤3.0, adjusted HR 1.8 (95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.4; 2.2). In patients with NLR >3.0 and concomitant hyponatremia vs. NLR ≤3.0 and normal sodium the 5-year survival rate was 21.7% vs. 73.2%, adjusted HR 2.8 (95% CI, 2.1; 3.8). At RCC recurrence, patients with NLR >3.0 and hyponatremia similarly had poorest survival, adjusted HR 3.6 (95% CI, 1.0; 12.8).Conclusion: Elevated NLR alone and in combination with hyponatremia at time of initial RCC diagnosis and at time of RCC recurrence are associated with poor prognosis. Combining these two prognostic markers yield a stronger association than NLR considered alone. This may impact prognostic prediction and its related therapeutic strategy.

Blood natural killer cells during treatment in recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Recent research indicated favorable prognostic impact of intratumoral natural killer (NK) cells in ovarian carcinoma (OC). The role of NK cells during chemotherapy in OC is unknown. We investigated impact of NK cells in OC patients treated with palliative chemotherapy. METHODS: Participants receiving palliative chemotherapy for recurrent OC (N = 72) had prospectively blood samples at baseline and before cycle 2. NK cell counts were quantified by flow cytometry. NK cell activity was measured by the NK Vue® assay, estimating interferon-gamma production. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint. Cutoffs were predefined, NK numbers (≥184 × 106 cells/L vs. <184 × 106 cells/L) and NK activity (<200 pg/mL vs. ≥200 pg/mL). RESULTS: Median OS in patients with low vs. high NK cell count at baseline was 7.1 months vs. 15.6 months (p = .028), respectively, and before cycle 2 was 5.7 vs. 17.3 months, p < .001, respectively. The difference in restricted mean survival (ΔRMST) was 5.7 months (95% CI: 3.3-8.0) at cycle 2 vs. 2.5 months (95% CI: -0.6 to 5.6) at baseline, showing a significant difference with no overlap of confidence intervals. In multivariate analyses, low NK cell count remained significant with a hazard ratio (HR)=2.83, 95% CI: 1.53-5.22, p = .001 (baseline) and HR = 3.34, 95% CI: 1.67-6.71, p = .001 (before cycle 2). Patients with both low NK count and NK activity at baseline (N = 20) had median OS 6.5 months vs. 11.5 months in patients with either high activity, high count or both (p = .007). In parallel, patients with both low NK activity and count at cycle 2 (N = 18) had a median survival of 4.0 months vs. 15.4 months (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A low blood NK cell count in recurrent metastatic ovarian cancer during chemotherapy is associated with unfavorable prognostic impact. Early increase in survival difference based on NK cell status suggests an association between NK cell count and treatment benefit.

Favorable prognostic impact of Natural Killer cells and T cells in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.

Introduction: The aim of the present study was to investigate the prognostic impact of intratumoral cytotoxic T cells, Natural Killer (NK) cells, neutrophils and PD-L1 expression in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.Methods: All patients diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) in Denmark in 2005 were included in the study. Immunohistochemical staining for PD-L1, CD8, CD66b and CD57 was performed on tumor tissue from 283 patients. Cell densities were analyzed using a digital image analysis method. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).Results: The median OS for HGSC patients was 30 months. It was 45 months in patients with high level of CD57+ NK cells (≥10 cells/mm2) compared with 29 month in patients with low level (<10 cells/mm2) (p = .0310). The median OS was 37 and 25 months in patients with high vs. low level of CD8+ T cells (cutoff 80 cells/mm2) (p = .0008). In multivariate analysis, high numbers of CD57+ NK cells and CD8+ T cells remained independent markers of favorable OS, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; p = .041, and HR 0.72; p = .020, respectively. PD-L1 expression was associated with improved OS (37 months vs. 22 months, p = .0006), but was only borderline significant in the multivariate analysis (HR 0.77, p = .061). CD66b + neutrophils had no association with OS.Conclusions: In patients with HGSC tumor-infiltrating CD57+ NK cells and CD8+ T cells had favorable prognostic impact, while PD-L1 expression had borderline favorable prognostic significance. CD66b + neutrophils had no prognostic association. These findings may influence future immunotherapy development.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Adjuvant Sunitinib in High-Risk Renal-Cell Carcinoma after Nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitor, is an effective treatment for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with locoregional renal-cell carcinoma at high risk for tumor recurrence after nephrectomy. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we assigned 615 patients with locoregional, high-risk clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive either sunitinib (50 mg per day) or placebo on a 4-weeks-on, 2-weeks-off schedule for 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was disease-free survival, according to blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included investigator-assessed disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The median duration of disease-free survival was 6.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8 to not reached) in the sunitinib group and 5.6 years (95% CI, 3.8 to 6.6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.98; P=0.03). Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff. Dose reductions because of adverse events were more frequent in the sunitinib group than in the placebo group (34.3% vs. 2%), as were dose interruptions (46.4% vs. 13.2%) and discontinuations (28.1% vs. 5.6%). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent in the sunitinib group (48.4% for grade 3 events and 12.1% for grade 4 events) than in the placebo group (15.8% and 3.6%, respectively). There was a similar incidence of serious adverse events in the two groups (21.9% for sunitinib vs. 17.1% for placebo); no deaths were attributed to toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with locoregional clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at high risk for tumor recurrence after nephrectomy, the median duration of disease-free survival was significantly longer in the sunitinib group than in the placebo group, at a cost of a higher rate of toxic events. (Funded by Pfizer; S-TRAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00375674 .).