TiNivo: safety and efficacy of tivozanib-nivolumab combination therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with tivozanib, a highly selective and potent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated single-agent efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) along with minimal off-target toxicities and a favorable adverse event (AE) profile. We report final results from TiNivo, a phase Ib/II study of tivozanib combined with nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In phase Ib, patients with metastatic RCC received tivozanib 1.0 mg once daily (QD) for 21 days followed by 7 days off treatment (n = 3) or tivozanib 1.5 mg QD (n = 3) plus nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be tivozanib 1.5 mg, and 22 additional patients were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose for phase II. Primary end points included safety and tolerability, with secondary end points of objective response rate, disease control rate, and progression-free survival. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were treated with tivozanib 1.5 mg QD [12 (48%) treatment-naïve; 13 (52%) previously treated]. Treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 20 patients (80%); 4 patients (17%) experienced AEs that led to dose reduction, and 8 (32%) discontinued due to AEs. The objective response rate was 56% (including one complete response) and disease control rate was 96%, with a median time to best response of 7.9 weeks. Twenty patients (80%) had tumor shrinkage. With a median follow-up of 19.0 months (range, 12.6-22.8), median progression-free survival was 18.9 months (95% confidence interval 16.4-not reached) in all patients and was similar in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib plus nivolumab combination therapy showed a generally tolerable AE profile and promising antitumor efficacy. These results support further development of tivozanib combined with nivolumab as a treatment option in patients with treatment-naïve or previously treated metastatic RCC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03136627.

Adjuvant sunitinib in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma: safety, therapy management, and patient-reported outcomes in the S-TRAC trial.

Background: Adjuvant sunitinib has significantly improved disease-free survival versus placebo in patients with renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence post-nephrectomy (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.98; two-sided P = 0.03). We report safety, therapy management, and patient-reported outcomes for patients receiving sunitinib and placebo in the S-TRAC trial. Patients and methods: Patients were stratified by the University of California, Los Angeles Integrated Staging System and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, and randomized (1 : 1) to receive sunitinib (50 mg/day) or placebo. Single dose reductions to 37.5 mg, dose delays, and dose interruptions were used to manage adverse events (AEs). Patients' health-related quality of life, including key symptoms typically associated with sunitinib, were evaluated with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Results: Patients maintained treatment for 9.5 (mean, SD 4.4) and 10.3 (mean, SD 3.7) months in the sunitinib and placebo arms, respectively. In the sunitinib arm, key AEs occurred ∼1 month (median) after start of treatment and resolved within ∼3.5 weeks (median). Many (40.6%) AEs leading to permanent discontinuation were grade 1/2, and most (87.2%) resolved or were resolving by 28 days after last treatment. Patients taking sunitinib showed a significantly lower EORTC QLQ-C30 overall health status score versus placebo, although this reduction was not clinically meaningful. Patients reported symptoms typically related to sunitinib treatment with diarrhea and loss of appetite showing clinically meaningful increases. Conclusions: In S-TRAC, AEs were predictable, manageable, and reversible via dose interruptions, dose reductions, and/or standard supportive medical therapy. Patients on sunitinib did report increased symptoms and reduced HRQoL, but these changes were generally not clinically meaningful, apart from appetite loss and diarrhea, and were expected in the context of known sunitinib effects. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00375674.

Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: The composition of gut microbiota affects antitumor immune responses, preclinical and clinical outcome following immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in cancer. Antibiotics (ATB) alter gut microbiota diversity and composition leading to dysbiosis, which may affect effectiveness of ICI. Patients and methods: We examined patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 mAb monotherapy or combination at two academic institutions. Those receiving ATB within 30 days of beginning ICI were compared with those who did not. Objective response, progression-free survival (PFS) determined by RECIST1.1 and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: Sixteen of 121 (13%) RCC patients and 48 of 239 (20%) NSCLC patients received ATB. The most common ATB were ß-lactam or quinolones for pneumonia or urinary tract infections. In RCC patients, ATB compared with no ATB was associated with increased risk of primary progressive disease (PD) (75% versus 22%, P < 0.01), shorter PFS [median 1.9 versus 7.4 months, hazard ratio (HR) 3.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-6.9, P < 0.01], and shorter OS (median 17.3 versus 30.6 months, HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.1-10.8, P = 0.03). In NSCLC patients, ATB was associated with similar rates of primary PD (52% versus 43%, P = 0.26) but decreased PFS (median 1.9 versus 3.8 months, HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2, P = 0.03) and OS (median 7.9 versus 24.6 months, HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.6-7.7, P < 0.01). In multivariate analyses, the impact of ATB remained significant for PFS in RCC and for OS in NSCLC. Conclusion: ATB were associated with reduced clinical benefit from ICI in RCC and NSCLC. Modulatation of ATB-related dysbiosis and gut microbiota composition may be a strategy to improve clinical outcomes with ICI.

Reassessing the clinical spectrum associated with hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome in French FH mutation carriers.

We addressed uncertainties regarding hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC) by exploring all French cases, representing the largest series to date. Fumarate hydratase (FH) germline testing was performed with Sanger sequencing and qPCR/MLPA. Enzyme activity was measured when necessary. We carried out whenever possible a pathology review of RCC and S-(2-succino)-cysteine (2SC)/fumarate hydratase immunohistochemistry. We estimated survival using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier. There were 182 cases from 114 families. Thirty-seven RCC were diagnosed in 34 carriers (19%) at a median age of 40. Among the 23 RCC with pathology review, 13 were papillary type 2. There were 4 papillary RCC of unspecified type, 3 unclassified, 2 tubulocystic, and 1 collecting duct (CD) RCC, all 2SC+ and most (8/10) FH-. Of the remaining 14, papillary type 2, papillary unspecified, CD, and clear cell histologies were reported. The vast majority of RCC (82%) were metastatic at diagnosis or rapidly became metastatic. Median survival for metastatic disease was 18 months (95%CI: 11-29). 133 cases (73%) had a history of cutaneous leiomyomas, 3 developed skin leiomyosarcoma. Uterine leiomyomas were frequent in women (77%), but no sarcomas were observed. Only 2 cases had pheochromocytomas/paraganglioma. CONCLUSION: Our findings have direct implications regarding the identification and management of HLRCC patients.

Second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer: experts' consensus algorithms.

BACKGROUND: Second-line systemic treatment options for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer (mccRCC) are diverse and treatment strategies are variable among experts. Our aim was to investigate the approach for the second-line treatment after first-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Recently two phase III trials have demonstrated a potential role for nivolumab (NIV) and cabozantinib (CAB) in this setting. We aimed to estimate the impact of these trials on clinical decision making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven international experts were asked to provide their treatment strategies for second-line systemic therapy for mccRCC in the current setting and once NIV and CAB will be approved and available. The treatment strategies were analyzed with the objective consensus approach. RESULTS: The analysis of the decision trees revealed everolimus (EVE), axitinib (AXI), NIV and TKI switch (sTKI) as therapeutic options after first-line TKI therapy in the current situation and mostly NIV and CAB in the future setting. The most commonly used criteria for treatment decisions were duration of response, TKI tolerance and zugzwang a composite of several related criteria. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the first-line setting, recommendations for second-line systemic treatment of mccRCC among experts were not as heterogeneous. The agents mostly used after disease progression on a first-line TKI included: EVE, AXI, NIV and sTKI. In the future setting of NIV and CAB availability, NIV was the most commonly chosen drug, whereas several experts identified situations where CAB would be preferred.

How to report toxicity associated with targeted therapies?

BACKGROUND: In the era of personalized medicine, molecularly targeted therapies (MTT) have modified the outcome of some cancer types. The price of tumor control needs to be balanced with toxicity since these new therapies are administered continuously for several months or sometimes for several years. For cytotoxic drugs, the incidence of adverse event (AE) was traditionally reported as frequency and intensity. This simple measure is not sufficient to capture the recurrent nature and duration of AE. This paper presents two methods to better describe the toxicity burden across the time: prevalence and Q-TWiST. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Limitation of worst-grade method and advantages of prevalence and Q-TWiST in the analysis of toxicity were illustrated using data from a phase II trial and a hypothetically simulated clinical trial. RESULTS: Prevalence integrates the recurrent nature of AE. Using prevalence, it is possible to obtain a time profile of AE. Q-TWiST method evaluates the weighted time spent in each health state and also considers the recurrent nature of side-effects in order to assess the 'risk-benefit' ratio of a treatment. When interpreting Q-TWiST results, it is necessary to take into account overall survival and progression-free survival and to define a clinically relevant difference according to the setting. CONCLUSION: The two methods presented here capture different effects. They are helpful for physicians in their treatment choice (balance benefit risk), to counsel patients and to optimize supportive care. In order to ensure consistency and provide critical information required for medical decision-making, it is important to encourage the use of alternative statistical methods in the analysis of toxicities associated with MTT. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT00541008.

International cancer seminars: a focus on kidney cancer.

Recent years have seen important advances in our understanding of the etiology, biology and genetics of kidney cancer. To summarize important achievements and identify prominent research questions that remain, a workshop was organized by IARC and the US NCI. A series of 'difficult questions' were formulated, which should be given future priority in the areas of population, genomic and clinical research.

mTOR-inhibitor treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: contribution of Choi and modified Choi criteria assessed in 2D or 3D to evaluate tumor response.

PURPOSE: To determine whether 2D or 3D Choi and modified Choi (mChoi) criteria could assess the efficacy of everolimus against metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: RECIST-1.1, Choi, and mChoi criteria were applied retrospectively to analyse baseline and 2-month contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images in 48 patients with mRCC enrolled in the everolimus arm of the French randomized double-blind multicentre phase III trial comparing everolimus versus placebo (RECORD-1). The primary endpoint was centrally reviewed progression-free survival (PFS) calculated from the initial RECORD-1 analysis. Mean attenuation was determined for 2D target lesion regions of interest drawn on CECT sections whose largest diameters had been measured, and for the 3D whole target lesion. RESULTS: The median PFS was 5.5 months. The median PFS for everolimus responders defined using 3D mChoi criteria was significantly longer than for non-responders (7.6 versus 5.4 months, respectively), corresponding to a hazard ratio for progression of 0.45 (95 % CI: 0.22-0.92), with respective 1-year survival rates of 31 % and 9 %. No other 2D or 3D imaging criteria at 2 months identified patients who would benefit from everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: At 2 months, only 3D mChoi criteria were able to identify mRCC patients with a PFS benefit from everolimus. KEY POINTS: Choi criteria could not identify everolimus-treated patients with significantly prolonged PFS. mCHOI enabled identification of everolimus-treated mRCC patients with a PFS benefit. 3D attenuation measurement criteria appeared to perform better than single-slice measurement.

Hypertension and angiotensin system inhibitors: impact on outcome in sunitinib-treated patients for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: To examine the association between hypertension (HTN), angiotensin system inhibitors (ASI) use and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib (SU). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with mRCC who received SU as first-line treatment in Gustave Roussy from April 2004 to November 2013. The HTN (either pre-existing or secondary to SU), use of ASI (either before or during SU) were analysed. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of different exposures were compared with log-rank test. The associations between exposures and survival outcomes were estimated with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) through a multivariable Cox model adjusted for age, gender, International mRCC Database Consortium risk group and histology. RESULTS: Among 213 patients with a 3.6-year median follow-up, 134 were hypertensive and 105 were ASI users with a significant association between the two exposures (P < 0.0001). Hypertensive patients have longer OS (median: 41.6 versus 16.4 months, P < 0.0001) and longer PFS (median: 12.9 versus 5.6 months, P < 0.0001) than non-hypertensive patients (n = 79). ASI users (n = 105) had more HTN_PRE compared with those (n = 108) who did not (65% versus 19%, P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that hypertensive patients were significantly associated with OS (P = 0.05) and marginally with PFS (P = 0.06) while ASI intake was significantly associated with better OS [HR = 0.40; 95% CI (0.24-0.66), P < 0.001] and PFS [HR = 0.55 (0.35-0.86), P = 0.009]. The latter remain statistically significantly associated after controlling for the number of metastases. There is no difference on outcome between patients who receive ASI before starting SU and those who received ASI during SU treatment. CONCLUSION: Concomitant use of ASI may significantly improve OS and PFS in mRCC patients receiving SU. HTN is marginally associated with the outcome in these patients.

Radiofrequency ablation is a valid treatment option for lung metastases: experience in 566 patients with 1037 metastases.

BACKGROUND: Minimal invasive methods are needed as an alternative to surgery for treatment of lung metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The prospective database of two cancer centers including all consecutive patients treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for lung metastasis over 8 years was reviewed. RFA was carried out under general anesthesia, with computed tomography guidance using a 15-gauge multitined expandable electrodes RF needle. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-six patients including 290 men (51%), 62.7 ± 13.2 years old with primary tumor to the colon (34%), rectum (18%), kidney (12%), soft tissue (9%) and miscellaneous (27%) received 642 RFA for 1037 lung metastases. Fifty-three percent of patients had 1 metastasis, 25% had 2, 14% had 3, 5% had 4 and 4% had 5-8. Metastases were unilateral (75%), or bilateral (25%). The median diameter [extremes] of metastases was 15 mm (4-70). Twenty-two percent of patients had extrapulmonary disease amenable to local therapy including 49 liver, 16 bone and 60 miscellaneous metastases. Median follow-up was 35.5 months. Median overall survival (OS) was 62 months. Four-year local efficacy was 89%. Four-year lung disease control rate was 44.1%, with patient retreated safely up to four times. Primary origin, disease-free interval, size and number of metastases were associated with OS in multivariate analysis. Progression at RFA site was associated with poor OS [P = 0.011, hazard ratio (HR): 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.13-2.54)]. In the 293 colorectal cancer metastases, size >2 cm (HR = 2.10, P = 0.0027) and a number of metastases ≥3 (HR = 1.86, P = 0.011) remained significantly associated with OS. A prognostic score made of three groups based on the four above-mentioned prognostic factors demonstrated 3-year OS rates of respectively 82.2%, 69.5% and 53.6% (log-rank test, P ≤ 0.0001) among the three groups in the overall population, and of 81.3%, 72.8% and 57.9% (log-rank test, P = 0.005) in the colorectal cancer patients. CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency is an option for treatment of small size lung metastases, namely the ones below 2-3 cm.

Sunitinib administered on 2/1 schedule in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the RAINBOW analysis.

BACKGROUND: First-line sunitinib is recommended in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but it is frequently associated with relevant toxicities and subsequent dose reductions. Alternative schedules, such as 2-week-on treatment and 1-week-off (2/1 schedule), might improve tolerability. We evaluated the safety and outcomes of this schedule in a large multicenter analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective, multicenter analysis of mRCC patients treated with first-line sunitinib on a 2/1 schedule. Data of 249 patients were reviewed: 208 cases who started sunitinib on the 4/2 schedule (full dosage: 188/208, 90.4%) and thereafter switched to the 2/1 schedule for toxicity (group 4/2 → 2/1) and 41 patients who started first-line sunitinib with the 2/1 schedule because of suboptimal clinical conditions (group 2/1). A total of 211 consecutive patients treated with the 4/2 schedule in another institution served as external controls. Safety was the primary end point. Treatment duration (TD), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also analyzed. RESULTS: In group 4/2 → 2/1, the overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicities was significantly reduced (from 45.7% to 8.2%, P < 0.001) after the switch to 2/1 schedule. This advantage was maintained also in the 106/188 cases (56.4%) who maintained the full dosage. Fatigue, hypertension, hand-foot syndrome and thrombocytopenia were less frequent. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events in the negatively selected group 2/1 (only 73.2% starting at full dose) was 26.8%, similar to what observed in the external control group (29.4%). Median TD was 28.2 months in the 4/2 → 2/1 group (total time spent with both schedules), 7.8 months in the 2/1 group and 9.7 months in external controls. Median PFS was 30.2, 10.4 and 9.7 months, respectively. Median OS was not reached, 23.2 and 27.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: mRCC patients who moved to a modified 2/1 schedule of sunitinib experience an improved safety profile compared with that observed during the initial 4/2 schedule.

First-line treatment with sunitinib for type 1 and type 2 locally advanced or metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma: a phase II study (SUPAP) by the French Genitourinary Group (GETUG)†.

BACKGROUND: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC), type 1 and type 2, represents 10%-15% of renal cell carcinomas (RCC). There is no standard first-line treatment of metastatic PRCC (mPRCC). Anti-angiogenics have shown activity in retrospective studies but no prospective studies in pure papillary histology have been reported, but one with foretinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective phase II study evaluated sunitinib in first-line treatment of mPRCC. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Fifteen and 46 patients, respectively, with type 1 and type 2 mPRCC were enrolled. Using the MSKCC scoring system: 12 (20%), 33 (55%) and 9 (15%) patients were, respectively, in the favourable, intermediate or poor risk group and 7 undetermined. Median follow-up is 51.4 months. In type 1, 2 patients 13% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-30.5] had a partial response (PR), 10 had stable disease (SD) with 5 (33%) ≥12 weeks. In type 2, 5 patients 11% (95% CI 1.9-20.3) had a PR, 25 had SD with 10(22%) ≥12 weeks. Median PFS was 6.6 months (95% CI 2.8-14.8) in type 1 and 5.5 months (95% CI 3.8-7.1) in type 2. Median OS was 17.8 (95% CI 5.7-26.1) and 12.4 (95% CI 8.2-14.3) months, respectively, in type 1 and 2. Safety was as expected with sunitinib for metastatic RCC. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib showed activity in treatment of type 1 and 2 mPRCC but lower than in clear-cell mRCC. Both PFS and OS are longer in type I PRCC. Sunitinib represents an acceptable option in first-line treatment of mPRCC.

Guidelines for the definition of time-to-event end points in renal cell cancer clinical trials: results of the DATECAN project†.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, the use of intermediate time-to-event end points (TEEs) is increasingly common, yet their choice and definitions are not standardized. This limits the usefulness for comparing treatment effects between studies. The aim of the DATECAN Kidney project is to clarify and recommend definitions of TEE in renal cell cancer (RCC) through a formal consensus method for end point definitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A formal modified Delphi method was used for establishing consensus. From a 2006-2009 literature review, the Steering Committee (SC) selected 9 TEE and 15 events in the nonmetastatic (NM) and metastatic/advanced (MA) RCC disease settings. Events were scored on the range of 1 (totally disagree to include) to 9 (totally agree to include) in the definition of each end point. Rating Committee (RC) experts were contacted for the scoring rounds. From these results, final recommendations were established for selecting pertinent end points and the associated events. RESULTS: Thirty-four experts scored 121 events for 9 end points. Consensus was reached for 31%, 43% and 85% events during the first, second and third rounds, respectively. The expert recommend the use of three and two endpoints in NM and MA setting, respectively. In the NM setting: disease-free survival (contralateral RCC, appearance of metastases, local or regional recurrence, death from RCC or protocol treatment), metastasis-free survival (appearance of metastases, regional recurrence, death from RCC); and local-regional-free survival (local or regional recurrence, death from RCC). In the MA setting: kidney cancer-specific survival (death from RCC or protocol treatment) and progression-free survival (death from RCC, local, regional, or metastatic progression). CONCLUSIONS: The consensus method revealed that intermediate end points have not been well defined, because all of the selected end points had at least one event definition for which no consensus was obtained. These clarified definitions of TEE should become standard practice in all RCC clinical trials, thus facilitating reporting and increasing precision in between trial comparisons.

Tumoral CD105 is a novel independent prognostic marker for prognosis in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is essential for tumour growth and metastasis. There are conflicting reports as to whether microvessel density (MVD) using the endothelial marker CD105 (cluster of differentiation molecule 105) in clear-cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCC) is associated with prognosis. Recently, CD105 has been described as a RCC cancer stem cell marker. METHODS: A total of 102 ccRCC were analysed. Representative tumour sections were stained for CD105. Vascularity (endothelial CD105) was quantified by MVD. The immunohistochemistry analysis detected positive (if present) or negative (if absent) CD105 tumoral staining. This retrospective population-based study was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier method, t-test and Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: We found that the expression of endothelial CD105 (MVD) negatively correlated with nuclear grade (P<0.001), tumour stage (P<0.001) and Leibovitch score (P<0.001), whereas the expression of tumoral CD105 positively correlated with these three clinicopathological factors (P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, tumoral CD105 was found to be an independent predictor of poor overall survival (P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We have shown for the first time that tumoral CD105 is an independent predictive marker for death risk and unfavourable prognosis in patients with ccRCC after curative resection.

Axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: subanalyses by prior therapy from a randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: In the AXIS trial, axitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) previously treated with sunitinib or cytokines. METHODS: In post hoc analyses, patients were grouped by objective response to prior therapy (yes vs no), prior therapy duration (< vs ⩾median), and tumour burden (baseline sum of the longest diameter < vs ⩾median). PFS and overall survival (OS), and safety by type and duration of prior therapy were evaluated. RESULTS: Response to prior therapy did not influence outcome with second-line axitinib or sorafenib. PFS was significantly longer in axitinib-treated patients who received longer prior cytokine treatment and sorafenib-treated patients with smaller tumour burden following sunitinib. Overall survival with the second-line therapy was longer in patients who received longer duration of prior therapy, although not significant in the sunitinib-to-axitinib sequence subgroup; OS was also longer in patients with smaller tumour burden, but not significant in the cytokine-to-axitinib sequence subgroup. Safety profiles differed modestly by type and duration of prior therapy. CONCLUSIONS: AXIS data suggest that longer duration of the first-line therapy generally yields better outcome with the second-line therapy and that lack of response to first-line therapy does not preclude positive clinical outcomes with a second-line vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agent in patients with advanced RCC.

Efficacy and safety of sunitinib in elderly patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively analyzed sunitinib outcome as a function of age in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. METHODS: Data were pooled from 1059 patients in six trials. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared by log-rank test between patients aged <70 (n=857; 81%) and ≥70 (n=202; 19%) years. RESULTS: In first-line patients, median PFS was comparable in younger and older patients, 9.9 vs 11.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.73-1.09; P=0.2629), as was median OS, 23.6 vs 25.6 months (HR, 0.93; 95% CI: 0.74-1.18; P=0.5442). Similarly, in cytokine-refractory patients, median PFS was 8.1 vs 8.4 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; P=0.3350), while median OS was 20.2 vs 15.8 months (HR, 1.14; 95% CI: 0.73-1.79; P=0.5657). Some treatment-emergent adverse events were significantly less common in younger vs older patients, including fatigue (60% vs 69%), cough (20% vs 29%), peripheral edema (17% vs 27%), anemia (18% vs 25%), decreased appetite (13% vs 29%), and thrombocytopenia (16% vs 25%; all P<0.05). Hand-foot syndrome was more common in younger patients (32% vs 24%). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced age should not be a deterrent to sunitinib therapy and elderly patients may achieve additional clinical benefit.

Nivolumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in France: interim results of the observational, real-world WITNESS study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved in Europe for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in patients resistant to prior antiangiogenic therapy. WITNESS is an ongoing, prospective, observational study designed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nivolumab in patients with aRCC treated in real life (or routine practice) in France (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03455452). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study includes adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of aRCC who have initiated nivolumab after 1-2 prior lines of antiangiogenic therapy. Endpoints include overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of treatment (DOT), duration of response (DOR), overall response rate (ORR), subgroup analyses, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Results after a median follow-up of 12.3 months are presented here. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients with aRCC were included, of whom 38.2% had a Karnofsky score <80, 77.8% received nivolumab as second-line therapy, and 69.5% had undergone a previous nephrectomy. In the overall population, median OS was 20.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.6-25.0] months and median PFS was 5.2 (95% CI 4.5-5.9) months. ORR was 34.5%, median DOT was 3.8 months, and median DOR was 16.5 months. Nivolumab was effective in different subgroups including patients with bone or glandular metastases and those receiving baseline corticosteroids. Moreover, effectiveness was observed irrespective of prior nephrectomy and line of treatment. No new safety signals were identified; TRAEs of any grade were reported in 32.0% of patients, grade ≥3 and serious TRAEs in 11.1% each, and TRAEs leading to discontinuation in 8.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results of the ongoing WITNESS study confirm the real-world effectiveness and safety of nivolumab monotherapy in previously treated patients with aRCC. Treatment benefits were similar to those observed in the pivotal phase III CheckMate 025 randomized clinical trial, despite a broader, real-life study population.

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up from the phase III randomised CheckMate 9ER trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO + CABO) was approved for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) based on superiority versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial (18.1 months median survival follow-up per database lock date); efficacy benefit was maintained with an extended 32.9 months of median survival follow-up. We report updated efficacy and safety after 44.0 months of median survival follow-up in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and additional subgroup analyses, including outcomes by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve aRCC received NIVO 240 mg every 2 weeks plus CABO 40 mg once daily or SUN 50 mg for 4 weeks (6-week cycles), until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity (maximum NIVO treatment, 2 years). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) per BICR, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Overall, 323 patients were randomised to NIVO + CABO and 328 to SUN. Median PFS was improved with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [16.6 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.71]; median OS favoured NIVO + CABO versus SUN (49.5 versus 35.5 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.87). ORR (95% CI) was higher with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [56% (50% to 62%) versus 28% (23% to 33%)]; 13% versus 5% of patients achieved complete response, and median duration of response was 22.1 months versus 16.1 months, respectively. PFS and OS favoured NIVO + CABO over SUN across intermediate, poor and intermediate/poor IMDC risk subgroups; higher ORR and complete response rates were seen with NIVO + CABO versus SUN regardless of IMDC risk subgroup. Any-grade (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% (67%) versus 93% (55%) of patients treated with NIVO + CABO versus SUN. CONCLUSIONS: After extended follow-up, NIVO + CABO maintained survival and response benefits; safety remained consistent with previous follow-ups. These results continue to support NIVO + CABO as a first-line treatment for aRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177.