An interdisciplinary consensus on the management of brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Brain metastases are a challenging manifestation of renal cell carcinoma. We have a limited understanding of brain metastasis tumor and immune biology, drivers of resistance to systemic treatment, and their overall poor prognosis. Current data support a multimodal treatment strategy with radiation treatment and/or surgery. Nonetheless, the optimal approach for the management of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma remains unclear. To improve patient care, the authors sought to standardize practical management strategies. They performed an unstructured literature review and elaborated on the current management strategies through an international group of experts from different disciplines assembled via the network of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition. Experts from different disciplines were administered a survey to answer questions related to current challenges and unmet patient needs. On the basis of the integrated approach of literature review and survey study results, the authors built algorithms for the management of single and multiple brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The literature review, consensus statements, and algorithms presented in this report can serve as a framework guiding treatment decisions for patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:454-489.

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.).

Perioperative nivolumab versus observation in patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing nephrectomy (PROSPER ECOG-ACRIN EA8143): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for patients with intermediate-to-high risk renal cell carcinoma is partial or radical nephrectomy followed by surveillance. We aimed to investigate use of nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma to determine recurrence-free survival compared with surgery only. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (PROSPER EA8143), patients were recruited from 183 community and academic sites across the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, with previously untreated clinical stage T2 or greater or Tany N+ renal cell carcinoma of clear cell or non-clear cell histology planned for partial or radical nephrectomy. Selected patients with oligometastatic disease, who were disease free at other disease sites within 12 weeks of surgery, were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients using permuted blocks (block size of 4) within stratum (clinical TNM stage) to either nivolumab plus surgery, or surgery only followed by surveillance. In the nivolumab group, nivolumab 480 mg was administered before surgery, followed by nine adjuvant doses. The primary endpoint was investigator-reviewed recurrence-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma assessed in all randomly assigned patients regardless of histology. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started the assigned protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03055013, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021, 819 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus surgery (404 [49%]) or surgery only (415 [51%]). 366 (91%) of 404 patients assigned to nivolumab plus surgery and 387 (93%) of 415 patients assigned to surgery only group started treatment. Median age was 61 years (IQR 53-69), 248 (30%) of 819 patients were female, 571 (70%) were male, 672 (88%) were White, and 77 (10%) were Hispanic or Latino. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee stopped the trial at a planned interim analysis (March 25, 2022) because of futility. Median follow-up was 30·4 months (IQR 21·5-42·4) in the nivolumab group and 30·1 months (21·9-41·8) in the surgery only group. 381 (94%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 399 (96%) of 415 in the surgery only group had renal cell carcinoma and were included in the recurrence-free survival analysis. As of data cutoff (May 24, 2023), recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between nivolumab (125 [33%] of 381 had recurrence-free survival events) versus surgery only (133 [33%] of 399; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·21]; one-sided p=0·32). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated lipase (17 [5%] of 366 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group vs none in the surgery only group), anaemia (seven [2%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [3%] vs one [<1%]), abdominal pain (four [1%] vs six [2%]), and increased serum amylase (nine [2%] vs none). 177 (48%) patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 93 (24%) in the surgery only group had grade 3-5 adverse events due to any cause, the most common of which were anaemia (23 [6%] vs 19 [5%]), hypertension (27 [7%] vs nine [2%]), and elevated lipase (18 [5%] vs six [2%]). 48 (12%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab group and 40 (10%) of 415 in the surgery only group died, of which eight (2%) and three (1%), respectively, were determined to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Perioperative nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab did not improve recurrence-free survival versus surgery only followed by surveillance in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Long-Term Survival in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Tivozanib: Analysis of the Phase III TIVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib is an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Long-term exploratory analyses from the TIVO-3 trial in relapsed/refractory (R/R) RCC including patients (26%) with prior immuno-oncology (IO) therapy are reported. METHODS: Patients with R/R advanced RCC that progressed with 2 or 3 prior systemic therapies (≥1 VEGFR TKI) were randomized to tivozanib 1.5 mg QD or sorafenib 400 mg BID, stratified by IMDC risk and previous therapy. Safety, investigator-assessed long-term progression-free survival (LT-PFS), and serial overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean time on treatment was 11.0 months with tivozanib (n = 175) and 6.3 months with sorafenib (n = 175). Fewer grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred with tivozanib (46%) than sorafenib (55%). Dose modification rates were lower with tivozanib than sorafenib across age/prior IO subgroups; prior IO therapy did not impact dose reductions or discontinuations in either arm. Landmark LT-PFS rates were higher with tivozanib (3 years: 12.3% vs 2.4%; 4 years: 7.6% vs 0%). After 22.8 months mean follow-up, the OS HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.14); when conditioned on 12-month landmark PFS, tivozanib showed significant OS improvement over sorafenib (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91; 2-sided P = .0221). CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib demonstrated a consistent safety profile and long-term survival benefit in patients with R/R advanced RCC who were alive and progression free at 12 months. These post hoc exploratory analyses of LT-PFS and conditional OS support a clinically meaningful improvement with tivozanib versus sorafenib in this advanced RCC population.

Belzutifan plus cabozantinib for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma previously treated with immunotherapy: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Few treatment options are available for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received previous anti-PD-1-based or anti-PD-L1-based immunotherapy. Combining belzutifan, an HIF-2α inhibitor, with cabozantinib, a multitargeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitor of VEGFR, c-MET, and AXL, might provide more antitumoural effects than either agent alone. We aimed to investigate the antitumour activity and safety of belzutifan plus cabozantinib in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma that was previously treated with immunotherapy. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study was conducted at ten hospitals and cancer centres in the USA. Patients were enrolled into two cohorts. Patients in cohort 1 had treatment-naive disease (results will be reported separately). In cohort 2, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and had previously received immunotherapy and up to two systemic treatment regimens. Patients were given belzutifan 120 mg orally once daily and cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response assessed by the investigator. Antitumour activity and safety were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03634540, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Sept 27, 2018, and July 14, 2020, 117 patients were screened for eligibility, 52 (44%) of whom were enrolled in cohort 2 and received at least one dose of study treatment. Median age was 63·0 years (IQR 57·5-68·5), 38 (73%) of 52 patients were male, 14 (27%) were female, 48 (92%) were White, two (4%) were Black or African American, and two were Asian (4%). As of data cutoff (Feb 1, 2022), median follow-up was 24·6 months (IQR 22·1-32·2). 16 (30·8% [95% CI 18·7-45·1]) of 52 patients had a confirmed objective response, including one (2%) who had a complete response and 15 (29%) who had partial responses. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (14 [27%] of 52 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 15 (29%) patients. One death was considered treatment related by the investigator (respiratory failure). INTERPRETATION: Belzutifan plus cabozantinib has promising antitumour activity in patients with pretreated clear cell renal cell carcinoma and our findings provide rationale for further randomised trials with belzutifan in combination with a VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme (a subsidiary of Merck & Co) and the National Cancer Institute.

Tivozanib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Previously Treated With Axitinib: Subgroup Analysis from TIVO-3.

BACKGROUND: In phase III TIVO-3 trial, tivozanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the effectiveness of this drug after exposure to other selective VEGFR agents has not yet been defined. Herein, we characterize the clinical efficacy of tivozanib in patients with mRCC previously treated with axitinib. METHODS: We identified patients from the intention to treat (ITT) population, in the TIVO-3 trial, who received treatment with axitinib before enrolment in the study and evaluated PFS, response rate (RR), and safety. RESULTS: Out of 350 patients, 172 (83:89, tivozanib:sorafenib) had received prior treatment with axitinib in TIVO-3. In this subgroup, PFS was 5.5 months with tivozanib and 3.7 months with sorafenib (HR 0.68). RR was 13% and 8% favoring tivozanib. CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib is active in the treatment of patients with mRCC who have progressed on prior therapies, including axitinib.

Regulation of HHLA2 expression in kidney cancer and myeloid cells.

BACKGROUND: The immune checkpoint HERV-H LTR-associating 2 (HHLA2) is expressed in kidney cancer and various other tumor types. Therapeutics targeting HHLA2 or its inhibitory receptor KIR3DL3 are being developed for solid tumors, including renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the regulation of HHLA2 expression remains poorly understood. A better understanding of HHLA2 regulation in tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment is crucial for the successful translation of these therapeutic agents into clinical applications. METHODS: Flow cytometry and quantitative real-time PCR were used to analyze HHLA2 expression in primary kidney tumors ex vivo and during in vitro culture. HHLA2 expression in A498 and 786-O ccRCC cell lines was examined in vitro and in subcutaneous tumor xenografts in NSG mice. Monocytes and dendritic cells were analyzed for HHLA2 expression. We tested a range of cytokines and culture conditions, including hypoxia, to induce HHLA2 expression. RESULTS: Analysis of HHLA2 expression revealed that HHLA2 is expressed on tumor cells in primary kidney tumors ex vivo; however, its expression gradually diminishes during a 4-week in vitro culture period. A498 and 786-O ccRCC tumor cell lines do not express HHLA2 in vitro, but HHLA2 expression was observed when grown as subcutaneous xenografts in NSG immunodeficient mice. Induction experiments using various cytokines and culture conditions failed to induce HHLA2 expression in A498 and 786-O tumor cell lines in vitro. Analysis of HHLA2 expression in monocytes and dendritic cells demonstrated that only IL-10 and BMP4, along with IL-1ß and IL-6 to a lesser extent, modestly enhanced HHLA2 protein and mRNA expression. CONCLUSIONS: HHLA2 expression is induced on kidney cancer cells in vivo by a tumor microenvironmental signal that is not present in vitro. HHLA2 expression is differentially regulated in kidney cancer epithelial cells and monocytes. Cytokines, particularly IL10, that induce HHLA2 expression in monocytes fail to upregulate HHLA2 expression in tumor cell lines in vitro. These findings underscore the importance of the interplay between tumor cell and tumor microenvironmental signals in the regulation of HHLA2. Further investigation is warranted to elucidate the mechanisms involved in HHLA2 regulation and its implications for therapeutic development.

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.

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 .).

A phase 1b trial of the CXCR4 inhibitor mavorixafor and nivolumab in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients with no prior response to nivolumab monotherapy.

Background The CXCR4 chemokine receptor promotes tumor survival through mechanisms that include suppressing antitumor immune responses. Mavorixafor (X4P-001) is an oral, selective, allosteric CXCR4 inhibitor that decreases the recruitment of immunosuppressive cells into the tumor microenvironment and increases activated cytotoxic Tcell infiltration. Methods Patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) unresponsive to nivolumab monotherapy received oral mavorixafor 400 mg daily plus 240 mg intravenous nivolumab every 2 weeks. Results Nine patients were enrolled, median age 65 years. At baseline 4 had progressive disease (PD) and 5 had stable disease (SD). One of 5 patients with SD at study entry on prior nivolumab monotherapy had a partial response (PR) on combination treatment; all 4 patients with PD at study entry had a best response of SD with the combination treatment (median duration: 6.7 months; range: 3.7-14.7). Four patients discontinued therapy due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Grade ≥ 3 drug-related AEs were elevated alanine and aspartate aminotransferase (2 patients each); and autoimmune hepatitis, chronic kidney disease, increased lipase, maculopapular rash, and mucosal inflammation (1 patient each). A robust increase in levels of chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 9 CXCL9 on mavorixafor appeared to correlate with clinical benefit. Conclusions The CXCR4 inhibition mediated by mavorixafor, in combination with PD-1 blockade to enhance antitumor immune responses in patients unresponsive to checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, is worthy of further study. Mavorixafor and nivolumab combination therapy in patients with advanced ccRCC demonstrated potential antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02923531. Date of registration: October 04, 2016.

Mechanisms of acquired resistance to rapalogs in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) is an established therapeutic target in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Mechanisms of secondary resistance to rapalog therapy in RCC have not been studied previously. We identified six patients with metastatic RCC who initially responded to mTOR inhibitor therapy and then progressed, and had pre-treatment and post-treatment tumor samples available for analysis. We performed deep whole exome sequencing on the paired tumor samples and a blood sample. Sequence data was analyzed using Mutect, CapSeg, Absolute, and Phylogic to identify mutations, copy number changes, and their changes over time. We also performed in vitro functional assays on PBRM1 in RCC cell lines. Five patients had clear cell and one had chromophobe RCC. 434 somatic mutations in 416 genes were identified in the 12 tumor samples. 201 (46%) of mutations were clonal in both samples while 129 (30%) were acquired in the post-treatment samples. Tumor heterogeneity or sampling issues are likely to account for some mutations that were acquired in the post-treatment samples. Three samples had mutations in TSC1; one in PTEN; and none in MTOR. PBRM1 was the only gene in which mutations were acquired in more than one post-treatment sample. We examined the effect of PBRM1 loss in multiple RCC cell lines, and could not identify any effect on rapalog sensitivity in in vitro culture assays. We conclude that mTOR pathway gene mutations did not contribute to rapalog resistance development in these six patients with advanced RCC. Furthermore, mechanisms of resistance to rapalogs in RCC remain unclear and our results suggest that PBRM1 loss may contribute to sensitivity through complex transcriptional effects.

Tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TIVO-3): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by inhibitors of VEGF receptor. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with a VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor might be effective in patients who had previous checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Therefore, TIVO-3 was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of tivozanib (a potent and selective VEGFR inhibitor) with those of sorafenib as third-line or fourth-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled trial done at 120 academic hospitals in 12 countries, we enrolled eligible patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic renal cell carcinoma and at least two previous systemic treatments (including at least one previous treatment with a VEGFR inhibitor), measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were excluded if they had received previous treatment with tivozanib or sorafenib. Patients were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category and type of previous therapy and randomised (1:1) with a complete permuted block design (block size of four) to either tivozanib 1·5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02627963. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 2016, and Aug 14, 2017, 350 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivozanib (175 patients) or sorafenib (175 patients). Median follow-up was 19·0 months (IQR 15·0-23·4). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with tivozanib (5·6 months, 95% CI 5·29-7·33) than with sorafenib (3·9 months, 3·71-5·55; hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·56-0·94; p=0·016). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (35 [20%] of 173 patients treated with tivozanib and 23 [14%] of 170 patients treated with sorafenib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (11%) patients with tivozanib and in 17 (10%) patients with sorafenib. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that tivozanib as third-line or fourth-line therapy improved progression-free survival and was better tolerated compared with sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: AVEO Oncology.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes in a phase 2 study comparing atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab vs sunitinib in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks (n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6-week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2-point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. RESULTS: Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue-related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22-0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12-0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22-0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. CONCLUSION: PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

Predictive correlates of response to the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A in cancer patients.

The development of human cancer is a multistep process characterized by the accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations that drive or reflect tumour progression. These changes distinguish cancer cells from their normal counterparts, allowing tumours to be recognized as foreign by the immune system. However, tumours are rarely rejected spontaneously, reflecting their ability to maintain an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1; also called B7-H1 or CD274), which is expressed on many cancer and immune cells, plays an important part in blocking the 'cancer immunity cycle' by binding programmed death-1 (PD-1) and B7.1 (CD80), both of which are negative regulators of T-lymphocyte activation. Binding of PD-L1 to its receptors suppresses T-cell migration, proliferation and secretion of cytotoxic mediators, and restricts tumour cell killing. The PD-L1-PD-1 axis protects the host from overactive T-effector cells not only in cancer but also during microbial infections. Blocking PD-L1 should therefore enhance anticancer immunity, but little is known about predictive factors of efficacy. This study was designed to evaluate the safety, activity and biomarkers of PD-L1 inhibition using the engineered humanized antibody MPDL3280A. Here we show that across multiple cancer types, responses (as evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1) were observed in patients with tumours expressing high levels of PD-L1, especially when PD-L1 was expressed by tumour-infiltrating immune cells. Furthermore, responses were associated with T-helper type 1 (TH1) gene expression, CTLA4 expression and the absence of fractalkine (CX3CL1) in baseline tumour specimens. Together, these data suggest that MPDL3280A is most effective in patients in which pre-existing immunity is suppressed by PD-L1, and is re-invigorated on antibody treatment.

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.

Vascular endothelial growth factor and programmed death-1 pathway inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma has historically carried a poor prognosis with very limited treatment options. However, in recent years, the treatment landscape has changed drastically, with many new therapeutic options and improved survival for patients. Novel treatments consist of molecularly targeted agents against the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway as well as the immune checkpoint inhibitors, which stimulate an antitumor immune response. Recent strategy has focused on the development of combination therapy with the use of VEGF inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line setting. As more treatments are approved and the options for therapy expand further, there is a growing need for predictive biomarkers to personalize treatment choices for individual patients. Prospective clinical trials comparing the sequencing of treatments are needed to help determine the best therapeutic approach.

Enhancing Antitumor Immunity with Antiangiogenic Therapy: A Clinical Model in Renal Cell Carcinoma?

Combination therapies involving antiangiogenic agents plus immune checkpoint inhibitors have recently demonstrated clinical efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This commentary summarizes the clinical advances and reviews the potential implications for RCC and other advanced solid tumors.

An Open Label Phase Ib Dose Escalation Study of TRC105 (Anti-Endoglin Antibody) with Axitinib in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: TRC105 is an IgG1 endoglin monoclonal antibody that potentiates VEGF inhibitors in preclinical models. We assessed safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of TRC105 in combination with axitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: Heavily pretreated mRCC patients were treated with TRC105 weekly (8 mg/kg and then 10 mg/kg) in combination with axitinib (initially at 5 mg b.i.d. and then escalated per patient tolerance to a maximum of 10 mg b.i.d.) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity using a standard 3 + 3 phase I design. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (median number of prior therapies = 3) were treated. TRC105 dose escalation proceeded to 10 mg/kg weekly without dose-limiting toxicity. Adverse event characteristics of each drug were not increased in frequency or severity when the two drugs were administered concurrently. TRC105 and axitinib demonstrated preliminary evidence of activity, including partial responses (PR) by RECIST in 29% of patients, and median progression-free survival (11.3 months). None of the patients with PR had PR to prior first-line treatment. Lower baseline levels of osteopontin and higher baseline levels of TGF-ß receptor 3 correlated with overall response rate. CONCLUSION: TRC105 at 8 and 10 mg/kg weekly was well tolerated in combination with axitinib, with encouraging evidence of activity in patients with mRCC. A multicenter, randomized phase II trial of TRC105 and axitinib has recently completed enrollment (NCT01806064). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: TRC105 is a monoclonal antibody to endoglin (CD105), a receptor densely expressed on proliferating endothelial cells and also on renal cancer stem cells that is implicated as a mediator of resistance to inhibitors of the VEGF pathway. In this Phase I trial, TRC105 combined safely with axitinib at the recommended single agent doses of each drug in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The combination demonstrated durable activity in a VEGF inhibitor-refractory population and modulated several angiogenic biomarkers. A randomized Phase II trial testing TRC105 in combination with axitinib in clear cell renal cell carcinoma has completed accrual.