Belzutifan versus Everolimus for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

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

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.

Efficacy and Toxicity Analysis of mFOLFIRINOX in High-Grade Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: High-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) comprise both well-differentiated grade 3 neuroendocrine tumors (G3 NETs) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs). Mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasms (MiNENs) nearly always include poorly differentiated NEC as the neuroendocrine component. The efficacy and safety of frontline mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy has never been investigated in patients with high-grade NENs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of patients with advanced high-grade NEN of the gastroenteropancreatic tract or of unknown origin seen between February 2016 and April 2023 who received treatment with frontline mFOLFIRINOX. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were included (G3 NETs: n=2; NECs: n=25; MiNENs: n=8; stage III: n=5; stage IV: n=30). The objective response rate was 77% (complete response: 3%; partial response: 74%). Median progression-free survival was 12 months (95% CI, 9.2-16.2 months) and median overall survival was 20.6 months (95% CI, 17.2-30.6 months). No significant differences in efficacy were seen according to primary site, histopathology, and Ki-67 proliferative index. All 5 patients with stage III disease who received mFOLFIRINOX obtained an objective response and underwent radical surgery or definitive radiotherapy with curative intent, with a recurrence rate of 40%. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were observed in 43% of patients (mainly neutropenia and diarrhea). Females were at significantly increased risk of developing severe toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: mFOLFIRINOX shows antitumor activity against high-grade NENs. Well-designed, prospective clinical trials are needed to assess the efficacy of mFOLFIRINOX in both the neoadjuvant and metastatic settings.

Management of Adverse Reactions Related to Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Treatment Among Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma is the predominant histological type of kidney cancer with historically poor patient outcomes. Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab is an approved first-line regimen for people with advanced renal cell carcinoma that showed clinically meaningful improvements in efficacy over sunitinib in the CLEAR trial; however, reduced patient exposure to treatment (often stemming from adverse reactions) is a potential therapeutic barrier that must be addressed. Here, we present management strategies for adverse reactions associated with this treatment combination: fatigue, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, hypertension, stomatitis, decreased appetite, rash, nausea, and proteinuria. Dosing modification of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab should be made according to the prescribing information for each medication. Clinicians should consider that some adverse reactions, such as diarrhea, may be attributable to lenvatinib, or may be a symptom of immune-related adverse reactions to pembrolizumab (such as colitis). Adverse reactions can generally be managed by: (1) advising the patient on precautionary measures (eg, for stomatitis, practice dental hygiene, avoid irritating foods, and maintain adequate hydration), (2) monitoring for changes in symptoms from baseline (eg, changes in bowel movements, blood pressure or level of fatigue), (3) interrupting/dose reducing lenvatinib or interrupting pembrolizumab, if warranted, and advising the patient to manage their current symptoms via self-care (managing diarrhea with antidiarrheal agents and hydration), and (4) implementing medical interventions (eg, thyroid replacement or antihypertensive therapy) when needed. Through successful management of adverse reactions, oncology clinicians can improve the well-being of their patients and likely enhance adherence rates to treatment with lenvatinib and pembrolizumab.

Assessment of bone turnover markers and DXA parameters to predict bone metastasis progression during zoledronate treatment: a single-center experience.

Bone metastases (BM) are a serious cancer complication, potentially causing substantial morbidity. Among the clinical issues related to BM, there is the lack of specific tools for early diagnosis and prognosis. We explored whether combining bone turnover markers (BTM) with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) assessment could identify early BM progression and risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) during zoledronate treatment. Before the initiation of zoledronate (T0) and after six months of treatment (T1), serum levels of five BTM were measured, and patients (N = 47) underwent DXA evaluation. Standard radiological imaging was performed to assess bone tumor response to medical anti-cancer treatment. High tumor burden in bone correlated with higher serum CTX (p = 0.007) and NTX (p = 0.005) at baseline. Low concentrations of OPG at T0 predicted BM progression with a sensitivity and specificity of 63% and 77%, respectively, when a cutoff of 5.2 pmol/l was used; such a predictive meaning was stronger in patients with lytic BM (sensitivity: 88%, specificity: 80%; p = 0.0006). As for the risk of SREs, we observed an association between low baseline OC (p = 0.04) and OPG (p = 0.08) and the onset of any-time SREs, whereas an increase in OPG over time was associated with reduced risk of on-study events (p = 0.03). Moreover, a statistically significant correlation emerged between low baseline lumbar T-score and femur BMD and on-study SREs (p < 0.001 in both instances). These findings suggest that addition of DXA to BTM dosage could help stratifying the risk of SREs at the time of BM diagnosis but does not enhance our capability of detecting bone progression, during zoledronate treatment.

Sarcoidosis-like reactions in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with immune-based combinations.

Aim: The incidence of drug-induced sarcoidosis-like reactions (DISR) in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is rising. We determine the incidence and characteristics of DISR in a metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) population. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed clinico-radiological data of 83 mRCC patients treated at a single institution with immune-based combinations. Results: 15 patients received immune-doublet (ipilimumab-nivolumab), while 68 patients received other immune-based combinations. Two cases of DISR (2.4%) were evidenced, with enlargement of mediastinal lymph nodes that mimicked disease progression, thus requiring a biopsy which showed histological features of DISR. Conclusion: In our series of the incidence of DISR, radiological and clinical features, are in line with literature. DISR diagnosis is often only radiological, and its occurrence is possibly associated with a better outcome.

The development of sarcoidosis-like lesions (DISR) is a rare event observed in cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. DISR occurrence represents a huge diagnostic issue, because its clinical and radiological features simulate disease progression. We present a series of 83 patients with kidney cancer receiving immunotherapy. During the therapy, two of these patients showed enlargement of chest lymph nodes that could be interpreted as disease progression. However, the microscopic analysis of these lymph nodes showed evidence of DISR. In conclusion, DISR should be adequately recognized to correctly manage patients who receive immunotherapy.

How to deal with renal toxicities from immune-based combination treatments in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A nephrological consultation for Oncologists.

We are witnessing a revolution in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Indeed, several immune-based combinations (ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] + ICI, or ICI + antiangiogenic agents) have been approved as first-line therapy for mRCC after demonstrating superior efficacy over the previous standard. Despite all the improvements made, safety remains a critical issue, adverse events (AEs) being the main reason for drug discontinuations or dose reductions, ultimately resulting in an increased risk of losing efficacy. Thus, a good understanding of the AEs associated with the use of immune-based combinations, their prevention, and management, are key in order to maximize therapeutic effectiveness. Among these AEs, renal ones are relatively frequent, but always difficult to be diagnosed, not to take into account that it is often difficult to determine which drug is to blame for such toxicities. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common finding in patients with RCC, either as a pre-existing condition and/or as a consequence of cancer and its treatment; furthermore, CKD, especially in advanced stages and in patients undergoing dialysis, may influence the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics properties of anticancer agents. Finally, managing cancer therapy in kidney transplanted patients is another challenge. In this review, we discuss the therapy management of immune-based combinations in patients with CKD, on dialysis, or transplanted, as well as their renal toxicities, with a focus on their prevention, detection and practical management, taking into account the crucial role of the consulting nephrologist within the multidisciplinary care of these patients.

Ongoing Clinical Trials and Future Research Scenarios of Circulating Tumor DNA for the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Liquid biopsy using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a minimally invasive, timely approach to provide molecular diagnosis and monitor tumor evolution in patients with cancer. Since the molecular landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is substantially heterogeneous and dynamic over space and time, ctDNA holds significant advantages as a biomarker for this disease. Numerous studies have demonstrated that ctDNA broadly recapitulates the molecular profile of the primary tumor and metastases, and have mainly focused on the genotyping of RAS and BRAF, that is propaedeutic for anti-EGFR treatment selection. However, ctDNA soon broadened its scope towards the assessment of early tumor response, as well as the identification of drug resistance biomarkers to drive potential molecular actionability. In this review article, we provide an overview of the current state-of-the-art of this methodology and its applications, focusing on ongoing clinical trials that employ ctDNA to prospectively guide treatment in patients with mCRC.

Concomitant Administration of VEGFR Tyrosine Kinase and Proton Pump Inhibitors May Impair Clinical Outcome of Patients With Metastatic Renal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is a common practice to reduce gastro-esophageal adverse events associated with drug treatments but may impair absorption and exposure to oncology drugs. This study investigated the effect of concomitant administration of PPIs and pazopanib, sunitinib and cabozantinib on survival of patients with metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Total 451 patients receiving pazopanib, sunitinib and cabozantinib as first line treatment were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were defined as "no concomitant PPIs (PPI-)" if no PPIs were administered during TKIs, and as "concomitant PPIs (PPI+)" if the administration of PPIs was at least 75% of the time during which TKIs were given. RESULTS: Eighty patients administered pazopanib were PPI- and 86 PPI+; no difference in PFS was observed (10.7 vs. 11.9 months, P = .79). If patients were stratified as short (n = 89) and long (n = 77) responders, there was a significant difference in terms of PFS in PPI+ (n = 47) versus PPI- (n = 30) in long responders, being 24.7 versus 38 months (P = .04), respectively. In the sunitinib cohort, no significant difference of PFS in PPI+ (n = 102) versus PPI- (n = 131) was found, being 11.3 versus 18.1 months, respectively (P=0.15). In the cabozantinib cohort, there was a statistically significant difference in PFS of PPI+ versus PPI- (6 months vs. not reached, P = .04). No correlation with adverse events was found. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between PPIs and impaired PFS in mRCC patients given pazopanib and cabozantinib and recommends caution on their concomitant use.

Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma: Outcomes for Patients Receiving First-line Immune-based Combinations or Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors from the ARON-1 Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the most frequent histological subtype of non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC). Owing to the heterogeneity of nccRCC, patients are often excluded from large phase 3 trials focused on clear cell RCC, so treatment options for nccRCC remain limited. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy of first-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or immuno-oncology (IO)-based combinations in patients with pRCC. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of real-world data collected for patients with advanced pRCC treated in 40 centers in 12 countries as part of the ARON-1 project (NCT05287464). The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), the overall response rate (ORR), and time to second progression (PFS2). OS, PFS, and PFS2 were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and results were compared between the treatment groups using a log-rank test. Univariate and multivariable analyses were carried out using Cox proportional-hazard models. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: We included 200 patients with metastatic pRCC, of whom 73 were treated with IO-based combinations and 127 with TKIs. Median OS was 22.5 mo in the TKI group 28.8 mo in the IO group (p = 0.081). Median PFS was 6.4 mo in the TKI group and 17.4 mo in the IO group (p < 0.001). The ORR was higher in the IO group than in the TKI group (41% vs 27%; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our results show that IO-based combinations have superior efficacy outcomes to TKIs for first-line treatment of metastatic pRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: The ARON-1 project collects clinical data for patients with kidney cancer treated in multiple centers worldwide to assess outcomes in the real-world setting. We analyzed data for patients with metastatic kidney cancer of a specific subtype to evaluate the efficacy of different first-line treatments. Patients treated with immune-based combinations had better outcomes than patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Real-World Impact of Upfront Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with First-Line Immunotherapy Combinations or Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (A Sub-Analysis from the ARON-1 Retrospective Study).

BACKGROUND: About 20% of patients with renal cell carcinoma present with non-clear cell histology (nccRCC), encompassing various histological types. While surgery remains pivotal for localized-stage nccRCC, the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in metastatic nccRCC is contentious. Limited data exist on the role of CN in metastatic nccRCC under current standard of care. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study focused on the impact of upfront CN on metastatic nccRCC outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (IO) combinations or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy. METHODS: The study included 221 patients with nccRCC and synchronous metastatic disease, treated with IO combinations or TKI monotherapy in the first line. Baseline clinical characteristics, systemic therapy, and treatment outcomes were analyzed. The primary objective was to assess clinical outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Statistical analysis involved the Fisher exact test, Pearson's correlation coefficient, analysis of variance, Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and univariate/multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS: Median OS for patients undergoing upfront CN was 36.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.9-71.3) versus 20.8 (95% CI 12.6-24.8) months for those without CN (p = 0.005). Upfront CN was significantly associated with OS in the multivariate Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio 0.47 [95% CI 0.31-0.72], p < 0.001). In patients without CN, the median OS and PFS was 24.5 (95% CI 18.1-40.5) and 13.0 months (95% CI 6.6-23.5) for patients treated with IO+TKI versus 7.5 (95% CI 4.3-22.4) and 4.9 months (95% CI 3.0-8.1) for those receiving the IO+IO combination (p = 0.059 and p = 0.032, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the survival benefits of upfront CN compared with systemic therapy without CN. The study suggests that the use of IO+TKI combination or, eventually, TKI monotherapy might be a better choice than IO+IO combination for patients who are not candidates for CN regardless of IO eligibility. Prospective trials are needed to validate these findings and refine the role of CN in current mRCC management.

Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) in breast cancer patients: The prospective observational multicenter VIP study.

Patients' self-reporting is increasingly considered essential to measure quality-of-life and treatment-related side-effects. However, if multiple patient-reported instruments are used, redundancy may represent an overload for patients. Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are a tool allowing direct patients' reporting of side-effects. We tested psychometric properties of a selected list of PRO-CTCAE items, in a cohort of 303 breast cancer patients, using validated instruments for quality of life assessment as anchors. The analysis of convergent validity with HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and EORTC BR-23 sub-scales, and the analysis of responsiveness with the PGIC (Patients Global Impression of Change) score supported that a selected list of PRO-CTCAE symptoms might represent a standardized, agile tool for both research and practice settings to reduce patient burden without missing relevant information on patient perceptions. Among patients using digital devices, those with a higher education levels required shorter time to fulfil questionnaires. In conclusion, a selected list of PRO-CTCAE items can be considered as a standardized, agile tool for capturing crucial domains of side-effects and quality of life in patients with breast cancer. The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04416672).

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

Corrigendum: Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1223282.].