COVID-19 and financial toxicity in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To ascertain renal cell carcinoma (RCC) financial toxicity on COVID-19 during the COVID-19 crisis as patients are struggling with therapeutic and financial implications. METHODS: An online survey was conducted from March 22 to March 25, 2020. It included baseline demographic, clinicopathologic, treatment-related information, anxiety levels related to COVID-19, questions related to financial concerns about COVID-19 as well as the validated 11-item COST measure. RESULTS: Five-hundred-and-thirty-nine patients (39%:58% male:female) from 14 countries responded. 23% of the patients did not feel in control of their financial situation but 8% reported being very satisfied with their finances. The median COST score was 21.5 (range 1-44). Metastatic patients who have not started systemic therapy had a COST score (19.8 range 2-41) versus patients on oral systemic therapy had a COST score (23.9 range 4-44). Patients in follow-up after surgery had a median COST score at 20.8 (range 1-40). A low COST scores correlated (p < 0.001) were female gender (r = 0.108), younger age (r = 0.210), urban living situation (r = 0.68), a lower educational level (r = 0.155), lower income (r = 0.165), higher anxiety about acquiring COVID-19 (r = 0.198), having metastatic disease (r = 0.073) and a higher distress score about cancer progression (r = 0.224). CONCLUSION: Our data highlight severe financial impact of COVID-19. Acknowledging financial hardship and thorough counseling of cancer patients should be part of the conversation during the pandemic. Treatment and surveillance of RCC patients might have to be adjusted to contemplate financial and medical needs.

Prevalence of Dietary Modification and Supplement Use in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Systemic Therapy.

Many patients diagnosed with cancer adopt dietary changes and supplement use, and a growing body of evidence suggests that such modifications can affect outcomes to cancer therapy. We sought to assess the prevalence of these practices and the surrounding physician-patient dialogue among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. An online survey was administered by Kidney Cancer Research Alliance (KCCure), interrogating dietary modification patterns, supplement usage, out-of-pocket expenditure related to supplements, and patients' views toward alternative medicine practices. Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving combination therapy were actively solicited. In total, 289 unique responses were collected. The most common first-line treatments were nivolumab/ipilimumab (32.4%) and axitinib/pembrolizumab (13.1%). Within the cohort, 147 (50.9%) started using supplements following diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma; the most utilized supplements were probiotics, cannabidiol (CBD) oil/marijuana, and Vitamin C, reported by 70 (47.6%), 61 (41.4%), and 54 (36.7%), respectively. Dietary modifications following cancer diagnosis were reported by 101 (34.9%) respondents, of which 19.8% followed the Mediterranean diet and 18.8% adopted a ketogenic diet. Most respondents (71.3%) noted that they consistently report supplement usage to their physicians. A substantial proportion of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma utilize dietary modification and supplements as an adjunct to antineoplastic therapy. Considering the widespread adoption of these practices and the reported effects on cancer treatment, it is crucial for healthcare providers to engage in discussions with patients regarding supplement use.

Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of initial vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFr-TKI) therapy: results of an interim analysis of a non-interventional study.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus is approved for treatment of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-refractory patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Clinical trials rarely mirror treatment reality. Thus, a broader evaluation of everolimus is valuable for routine use. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A German multicenter non-interventional study documented mRCC patients starting everolimus after failure of initial VEGF-targeted therapy. Primary endpoint was effectiveness, defined as time to progression (TTP) according to investigator assessment (time from first dose to progression). RESULTS: Of 382 documented patients, 196 were included in this interim analysis. In the efficacy population (n = 165), median TTP was 7.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.1-9.0). Among patients with < or ≥ 6 months of previous VEGF-targeted therapy, median TTP was 6.6 months (95% CI 3.8-not estimable) and 7.4 months (95% CI 4.6-9.6), respectively. Most common adverse events were anemia (13%) and dyspnea (14%). Physicians assessed high tolerance and documented high adherence to everolimus therapy (approximately 97%). CONCLUSION: In routine clinical practice, everolimus is effective, as measured by median TTP (longer than median progression-free survival in RECORD-1 trial), and well tolerated. Our results support everolimus use in anti-VEGF-refractory patients with mRCC.

Liver resection for metastatic disease prolongs survival in renal cell carcinoma: 12-year results from a retrospective comparative analysis.

UNLABELLED: The value of surgical resection of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) liver metastases still remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: Of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of liver resection by comparing patients who could have undergone metastasectomy due to limited disease, but refused surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight patients were identified with liver metastases and indication of surgery between 1995 and 2006. In 68 patients, liver resection was performed, 20 patients denied surgery and served as comparison group. Patients were followed for survival. RESULTS: Median age was 58. Median amount of liver metastases was 2 (range 1-30). Median follow-up was 26 months (range 1-187). In both groups, 79% received systemic therapy. The 5-year overall survival rate (OSR-5) after metastasectomy was 62.2% +/- 11.4% (SEM) with a median survival (MS) of 142 (95% confidence interval (CI) 115-169) months. OSR-5 in the control group was 29.3% +/- 22.0% (SEM) with a MS of 27 (95% CI 16-38) months (P = 0.003). MS was 155 (95% CI 133-175) months with metachronous metastases compared to 29 (95% CI 25-33) months in the comparison group (P = 0.001). Low-grade primary RCC had a MS of 155 (95% CI 123-187) months compared to 29 (95% CI 8-50) months without resection (P = 0.0036). High-grade RCC as well as patients with synchronous metastases did not benefit from surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Liver metastasectomy is an independent valuable tool in the treatment of metastatic RCC and significantly prolongs patient's survival, even if further systemic treatment is necessary. With the evidence given, patients may benefit from liver metastasis resection if technically feasible.

Sources of Frustration Among Patients Diagnosed With Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Despite numerous therapeutic advances in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), little is known about patients' perspectives on cancer care. An international survey was conducted to identify points of frustration associated with cancer care reported by patients with RCC. Data were obtained from an online survey, conducted from April 1 to June 15, 2017, through social media and patient networking platforms. This survey obtained baseline demographic, clinicopathologic, and treatment-related information. Open-ended questions accessed sources of frustration in cancer-related care and patients' suggestions for amelioration. Responses were categorized and reviewed by independent reviewers. A qualitative analysis was performed and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to define associations between baseline characteristics and sources of frustration. Among 450 patients surveyed, 71.5% reported sources of frustration, classified as either emotional (48.4%) or practical (23.1%). The most common were fear of recurrence/progression (15.8%), distrust of their cancer care system (12.9%), and lack of appropriate information (9.8%). Female gender and non-clear cell histology were associated with both types of frustration, and older age was linked to practical sources of frustration. Patients suggested solutions included greater compassion among health care practitioners (20.7%), better access to information (15.1%) and research to improve their chances of being cured (14.7%). Sources of frustration related to emotional and practical causes were identified amongst patients with RCC. Certain demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with more sources of frustration. This study provides the first characterization of specific ways to improve the patient experience by addressing common frustrations.

Randomized Open-Label Phase II Trial of Apitolisib (GDC-0980), a Novel Inhibitor of the PI3K/Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Pathway, Versus Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare dual inhibition of PI3K/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) by apitolisib (GDC-0980) against single inhibition of mTORC1 by everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clear-cell mRCC who progressed on or after vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy were randomly assigned to apitolisib 40 mg once per day or to everolimus 10 mg once per day. End points included progression-free survival, safety, overall survival, and objective response rate. Biomarker assessments were conducted. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were randomly assigned. After 67 events, stratified analysis revealed that median progression-free survival was significantly shorter for apitolisib than for everolimus (3.7 v 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.23 to 3.63; P < .01]); apitolisib was not favored in any stratification subgroup. Median overall survival was not significantly different but trended in favor of everolimus (16.5 v 22.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 0.97 to 3.24; P = .06]). The objective response rate was 7.1% for apitolisib and 11.6% for everolimus. Patients administered apitolisib with a greater incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more likely to discontinue treatment (31% v 12% for everolimus). No drug-related deaths were observed. Apitolisib in comparison with everolimus was associated with substantially more high-grade hyperglycemia (40% v 9%) and rash (24% v 2%). Apitolisib pharmacokinetics suggested a relationship between exposure, and rash and hyperglycemia. Retrospective biomarker analyses revealed a relationship between VHL mutation status and outcome with everolimus but not with apitolisib. High hypoxia-inducible factor 1α protein expression was associated with better outcome in both arms. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that dual PI3K/mTOR inhibition by apitolisib was less effective than was everolimus in mRCC, likely because full blockade of PI3K/mTOR signaling resulted in multiple on-target adverse events. VHL mutation and hypoxia-inducible factor 1α expression may be predictive of an mTOR inhibitor benefit, although prospective validation is required.