Phase II Trial of Intermittent Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Front-line Ipilimumab and Nivolumab.

INTRODUCTION: The combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab is approved for patients with treatment-naïve, intermediate-, and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but duration of therapy and safety/efficacy of reinduction at progression is unknown. A phase II trial of intermittent ipilimumab/nivolumab with reinduction at progression was conducted (NCT03126331). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve mRCC were treated with induction ipilimumab/nivolumab followed by up to 24 weeks of maintenance nivolumab. Patients who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) were eligible for inclusion and entered a treatment-free observation period. Patients were restaged every 12 weeks. Patients with no disease progression (PD) remained off therapy. Upon PD, patients were re-challenged with 2 doses of ipilimumab/nivolumab every 3 weeks. Study objectives were to estimate success rate of observation in patients who achieve a CR/PR, and to assess toxicity in patients undergoing reinduction. The study accrued slower than expected and was closed prior to the anticipated accrual goal of 20 patients. RESULTS: Nine patients were included; 89% male, median age 57, 67% clear-cell histology, and 78% intermediate-risk by IMDC criteria. Response to ipilimumab/nivolumab followed by nivolumab maintenance prior to enrollment was 33% CR and 67% PR. Most (78%) patients have remained off therapy, with a median treatment-free interval (TFI) of 34.3 months (range, 8.7-41.8). Two patients had PD off therapy and received 2 cycles of reinduction ipilimumab and nivolumab. No grade 3 or greater toxicities occurred with reinduction. Both patients developed PD at their first scans after reinduction. CONCLUSION: This prospective study demonstrates that patients with a radiographic response to ipilimumab/nivolumab can have prolonged treatment-free intervals. Further studies of de-escalation strategies are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03126331 [Date of registration 4/27/2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03126331].

Treatment-free survival and partitioned survival analysis of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib: 5-year update of CheckMate 214.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy can be associated with prolonged disease control even after cessation of treatment without the need for further cancer-directed therapy. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) can also persist after discontinuation of therapy. Treatment-free survival (TFS) with and without toxicity as a component of a partitioned survival model can characterize patient survival time, which is not captured by standard outcome measures. METHODS: Data from 1096 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the CheckMate 214 trial were analyzed. TFS was defined as the area between two Kaplan-Meier curves for time from randomization to protocol therapy discontinuation and time from randomization to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated as the difference in 60-month restricted mean times with confidence intervals (CIs) obtained using bootstrap sampling. Time on protocol therapy and TFS were further characterized as time with and without grade 2+ and 3+TRAEs. Survival functions were estimated in subgroups including International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: At 5 years from randomization, 48% of patients treated with NIVO+IPI and 37% of patients treated with SUN were alive. In the intent-to-treat population, 18% of the NIVO+IPI-treated and 5% of SUN-treated patients are surviving treatment-free. For favorable-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 14.4 months for NIVO+IPI versus 5.5 months for SUN (difference 8.9 months (95% CI 4.9 to 12.8)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 5.0 and 2.1 months, respectively, and with grade 3+TRAEs was 1.2 and 0.3 months, respectively. For intermediate/poor-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 10.1 months for NIVO+IPI versus 4.1 months for SUN (difference 6.1 months (95% CI 4.2 to 7.9)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 4.0 versus 2.0 months, respectively, and 0.6 versus 0.3 months with grade 3+TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall survival was similar, favorable-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI spent more time surviving treatment-free with and without toxicity versus SUN after 60 months of follow-up. Intermediate/poor-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI had longer survival and longer TFS without toxicity versus SUN. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02231749.

Impact of Targeted Systemic Therapy and Radiotherapy on Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing spine surgery for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), we sought to: (1) describe patterns of postoperative targeted systemic therapy and radiotherapy (RT), (2) compare perioperative outcomes among those treated with targeted systemic therapy to those without, and (3) evaluate the impact of targeted systemic therapy and/or RT on overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR). METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing spine surgery for metastatic RCC from 2010 to 2021 was undertaken. Treatment groups were RT alone, targeted systemic therapy alone, dual therapy consisting of RT and targeted systemic therapy, and neither therapy. Multivariable Cox regression controlled for age, race, sex, insurance, and preoperative targeted systemic therapy. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients underwent spine surgery for RCC. Postoperatively, 4 patients (8%) received RT alone, 19 (38.8%) targeted systemic therapy alone, 12 (24.5%) dual therapy, and 13 (28.6%) neither. All groups were similar in demographics, preoperative Karnofsky Performance Score (P = 0.372), tumor size (P = 0.413), readmissions (P = 0.884), complications (P = 0.272), Karnofsky Performance Score (P = 0.466), and Modified McCormick Scale (P = 0.980) at last follow-up. Higher 1-year survival was found in dual therapy (83.3%) compared with other therapies. OS was significantly longer in patients with dual therapy compared with other therapies (log-rank; P = 0.010). Multivariate Cox regression (HR = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.02-0.31, P < 0.001) showed longer OS in dual therapy compared with other therapies. Seven patients (14.3%) experienced LR, and a similar time to LR was found between groups (log-rank; P = 0.190). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing metastatic spine surgery for RCC, postoperative dual therapy demonstrated significantly higher 1-year survival and OS compared with other therapies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Multidisciplinary management of metastatic RCC is necessary to ensure timely implementation of targeted systemic therapy and RT to improve outcomes.

Impact of renal cell carcinoma molecular subtypes on immunotherapy and targeted therapy outcomes.

Saliby et al. show that a machine learning approach can accurately classify clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) into distinct molecular subtypes using transcriptomic data. When applied to tumors biospecimens from the JAVELIN Renal 101 (JR101) trial, a benefit is observed with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy across all molecular subtypes.

Validation of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) as a prognostic biomarker in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) is associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) outcomes across different solid tumors, particularly in non-small cell lung cancer. Data regarding the prognostic and/or predictive role of LIPI in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are still scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether LIPI could be predictive of survival in mRCC patients. METHODS: We used patient level data from three different prospective studies (NIVOREN trial: nivolumab; TORAVA trial: VEGF/VEGFR-targeted therapy (TT); CheckMate 214: nivolumab-ipilimumab vs sunitinib). LIPI was calculated based on a derived neutrophils/(leukocyte-neutrophil) ratio > 3 and lactate-dehydrogenase >upper limit of normal, classifying patients into three groups (LIPI good, 0 factors;LIPI intermediate (int), 1 factor;LIPI poor, 2 factors) and/or into two groups (LIPI good, 0 factors;LIPI int/poor, 1-2 factors) according to trial sample size. Primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: In the Nivolumab dataset (n = 619), LIPI was significantly associated with OS (LIPI-good 30.1 vs 13.8 months in the LIPI int/poor; HR= 0.47) and PFS (HR=0.74). In the VEGF/VEGFR-TT dataset (n = 159), only a correlation with PFS was observed. In the CheckMate214 dataset (n = 1084), LIPI was significantly associated with OS (nivolumab-ipilimumab OS LIPI good vs int/poor: HR=0.55, p < 0.0001; sunitinib: OS LIPI good vs int/poor: 0.38, p < 0.0001) in both treatment groups in univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment-LIPI correlated with worse survival outcomes in mRCC treated with either ICI or antiangiogenic therapy, confirming LIPI's prognostic role in mRCC irrespective of systemic treatment used.

A Pooled Analysis of Treatment-Free Survival in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A clinically meaningful attribute of some immune-oncology (IO) regimens is potential durable clinical benefit during a treatment-free interval. We characterize treatment-free survival (TFS) with and without ongoing toxicity in trials of frontline IO-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Individual patient data were pooled by treatment arm from randomized trials submitted to the FDA evaluating IO-TKI combination in treatment-naïve aRCC with at least 30 months of median follow-up. OS, TFS, TFS with and without toxicity, and time to all protocol therapy cessation were assessed. TFS was estimated by 30-month restricted mean times, defined as area between Kaplan-Meier curves for two time-to-event endpoints originating at randomization: time to all protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. RESULTS: Three trials met criteria for analysis; 1,183 patients received IO-TKI versus 1,184 on control arms receiving TKI alone (sunitinib, SUN). IO-TKI and SUN groups spent 9% {2.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-3.5]} and 10% [2.9 months (95% CI, 2.1-3.8)] of the 30-month period alive and treatment-free, respectively. Mean TFS without grade ≥3 toxicity was 1.7 and 2.3 months in IO-TKI and SUN groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc partitioned survival analysis, TFS and TFS without toxicity appeared similar in the IO-TKI group compared with the SUN group. These findings may reflect contin-uation of TKI until progression per protocol design in all trials and discontinuation of IO after 2 years in two trials. See related commentary by Stadler and Karrison, p. 3098.

Integrative Analyses of Tumor and Peripheral Biomarkers in the Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

The phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (N = 886) with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line avelumab + axitinib (A+Ax) versus sunitinib. We report novel findings from integrated analyses of longitudinal blood samples and baseline tumor tissue. PFS was associated with elevated lymphocyte levels in the sunitinib arm and an abundance of innate immune subsets in the A+Ax arm. Treatment with A+Ax led to greater T-cell repertoire modulation and less change in T-cell numbers versus sunitinib. In the A+Ax arm, patients with tumors harboring mutations in ≥2 of 10 previously identified PFS-associated genes (double mutants) had distinct circulating and tumor-infiltrating immunologic profiles versus those with wild-type or single-mutant tumors, suggesting a role for non-T-cell-mediated and non-natural killer cell-mediated mechanisms in double-mutant tumors. We provide evidence for different immunomodulatory mechanisms based on treatment (A+Ax vs. sunitinib) and tumor molecular subtypes. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings provide novel insights into the different immunomodulatory mechanisms governing responses in patients treated with avelumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) + axitinib or sunitinib (both VEGF inhibitors), highlighting the contribution of tumor biology to the complexity of the roles and interactions of infiltrating immune cells in response to these treatment regimens. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 384.

A phase 1b open-label study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of py314 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Checkpoint inhibition (CPI) is a standard therapeutic approach in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, not all patients respond to CPI, and the immune suppressive characteristics of the RCC tumor microenvironment may contribute to treatment failure. Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid Cells-2 (TREM2) is a transmembrane protein expressed on a subset of myeloid cells with M2-like anti-inflammatory properties that has previously been associated with disease recurrence after nephrectomy and poor outcomes when expressed at high levels. PY314 is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting TREM2 that depletes tumor-associated macrophages. In this study, the combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab was investigated in patients with CPI-refractory RCC. Eligible patients had clear cell RCC with disease progression on prior CPI either in combination or sequentially with VEGF-TKI. Patients were treated with PY314 10 mg/kg in combination with pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 21 days. The primary objective was to assess safety and tolerability and secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics and anti-tumor activity by RECIST v1.1. Seventeen patients were enrolled with a median age of 67 years, 82% male, 100% had prior CPI, and 76% had received three or more prior lines of therapy. The combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile with 47.1% any grade treatment-related adverse events (AE) (including only 5.9% grade ≥ 3), the most common being fatigue, pyrexia, nausea, and infusion-related reactions. One patient achieved a partial response (6%), and four patients had stable disease (24%) as their best response. The median PFS was 1.4 months (95% CI 1.2- 3.8). The combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab was safe, but the limited anti-tumor effect observed suggests that TREM2 targeting in conjunction with PD-1 blockade may not overcome resistance to prior CPI. Further investigation is warranted to determine if improved efficacy can be achieved in IO-naïve settings. Trial Registration: NCT04691375.

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.

PADRES: a phase 2 clinical trial of neoadjuvant axitinib for complex partial nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To report the results of PADRES (Prior Axitinib as a Determinant of Outcome of Renal Surgery, NCT03438708), a study investigating neoadjuvant axitinib for tumours of high complexity with imperative indication for partial nephrectomy (PN). METHODS: We conducted a single-arm phase II clinical trial of localized (cT1b-cT3M0) clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with imperative indications for nephron preservation, where PN is a high-risk procedure due to complexity (RENAL score 10-12). Axitinib 5 mg was administered twice daily for 8 weeks with repeat imaging at completion, followed by surgery. The primary outcome was successful completion of planned PN following axitinib treatment. Secondary objectives included changes in tumour diameter, RENAL nephrometry score, renal function and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v1.1, and surgical complications. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled (median age 69 years). Prior to therapy, twenty patients (74.0%) had ≥ clinical T3a staged tumours. Axitinib resulted in reductions in tumour diameter (7.5 vs 6.2 cm; P < 0.001) and RENAL score (11 vs 10; P < 0.001). Nine patients (33.3%) had partial response based on RECIST and nine (33.3%) were clinically downstaged. PN was performed in twenty patients (74.0%); twenty-five patients (96.2%) had negative margins. Six patients (22.2%) had Clavien III-IV complications. The median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (preoperative to last follow-up) was 8.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 . CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant axitnib resulted in reductions in tumour size and complexity, enabling safe and feasible PN and functional preservation in patients with complex renal masses and imperative indication.

LITESPARK-012: pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib with or without belzutifan or quavonlimab for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Combination treatment with immunotherapy agents and/or vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are a standard of care for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Novel therapeutic combinations that include the hypoxia-inducible factor 2α inhibitor belzutifan and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor quavonlimab are being investigated for their potential to further improve patient outcomes. This protocol describes the rationale and design of the randomized, phase III LITESPARK-012 study, which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib with or without belzutifan or quavonlimab as first-line treatment for advanced ccRCC. Results from this study may support triplet combination therapies as a potential new standard of care for advanced ccRCC. Clinical trial registry: NCT04736706 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Plain language summary looking at how long side effects last after treatment with axitinib is stopped in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Axitinib is a medication that stops cancer cell growth by depriving the cancer cell of the nutrients and oxygen that it needs. Axitinib is used to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is a type of kidney cancer that has spread within or beyond the kidney. Axitinib has been approved for the treatment of RCC as either a first treatment option or a second treatment option. It is used as a first treatment option for RCC when combined with a medication that reactivates the immune system (immunotherapy), either avelumab or pembrolizumab. If the advanced RCC starts growing again it can be used as a second treatment option where it is taken by itself. It is essential to conduct studies to assess how well the drug works and whether it has any side effects in order to understand whether it is safe to give to people. This summary reports the combined results of 5 studies and looks at how long side effects last after treatment is temporarily stopped. Researchers found that side effects generally got better in 3 days or less after people stopped taking axitinib on its own. The time it took for side effects to get better was generally shorter than for other similar drugs or combinations of axitinib and immunotherapy. The results of individual studies may vary from these 5 combined study results. Three of the 5 studies were ongoing at the time of this analysis and the final outcomes of those studies may differ from those described in this summary. The purpose of this plain language summary is to help you understand the findings from recent research. Health professionals should make treatment decisions based on all available evidence. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00678392, NCT00920816, NCT02493751, NCT02684006, NCT02853331 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 43-month Follow-up of the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 Study.

Previous analyses of KEYNOTE-426, an open-label, phase 3 randomized study, showed superior efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib to sunitinib in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We report results of the final protocol-prespecified analysis of KEYNOTE-426. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 wk per 6-wk cycle). The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v1.1 by a blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). The median study follow-up was 43 (range, 36-51) mo. Benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was maintained for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.60-0.88]), PFS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]), and ORR (60% vs 40%). The median DOR was 24 (range, 1.4+ to 43+) versus 15 (range, 2.3-43+) mo in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals emerged. These results support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for patients with previously untreated advanced ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Extended results of KEYNOTE-426 support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Navigating and adapting care integrating immunotherapy, antiangiogenic therapy, and combinations in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma is a biologically heterogeneous disease with multiple treatment options that largely involve immunotherapy and/or anti-angiogenic therapies. The choice of initial and subsequent therapy depends on both clinical and biological considerations. Here, we describe the application of recent data to clinical practice.

Long-term outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment of patients with advanced sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) provided efficacy benefits over sunitinib (SUN) in patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC at 42 months minimum follow-up in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, we report clinical efficacy of NIVO+IPI in sRCC after a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: In CheckMate 214, patients with clear cell advanced RCC were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses), then NIVO 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks versus SUN 50 mg once daily (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Randomized patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histological classification per local pathology report. Overall survival (OS), as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1, were evaluated in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk sRCC patients and by baseline tumor PD-L1 expression level (≥1% vs <1%). Safety outcomes are reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 139 patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC were identified (NIVO+IPI, n=74; SUN, n=65). At 5 years minimum follow-up, more patients remained on treatment with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (12% vs zero). Efficacy benefits with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were maintained with median OS of 48.6 vs 14.2 months (HR 0.46), median PFS of 26.5 vs 5.5 months (HR 0.50), and ORR 60.8% vs 23.1%. In addition, median duration of response was longer (not reached vs 25.1 months), and more patients had complete responses (23.0% vs 6.2%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively. Efficacy was better with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression, but the magnitude of OS, PFS, and ORR benefits with NIVO+IPI was greater for sRCC patients with tumor PD-L1 ≥1%. No new safety signals emerged in either arm with longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC, NIVO+IPI maintained long-term survival benefits and demonstrated durable and deep responses over SUN at minimum follow-up of 5 years, supporting NIVO+IPI as a preferred first-line therapy in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02231749.

Treatment of Refractory Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

First-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) rapidly shifted in recent years with the advent of combination therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) doublets and combinations of an ICI with a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Despite improvements in overall survival and many durable responses, there exists a significant number of patients who fail to respond to these agents, and many patients eventually progress. Given the rapid changes in the front-line setting, it is essential to understand treatment options in refractory mRCC. Here, we review the evidence behind current options for later-line therapies, often involving additional VEGFR-TKIs alone or in combination with mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) targeted agents, as well as situations where consideration of immunotherapy rechallenge may be appropriate. Additionally, we describe ongoing clinical trials examining concurrent ICI and TKI in the refractory setting, as well as those studying novel agents, such as targeted drug-antibody conjugates and hypoxia inducible factor 2α (HIF-2α) inhibitors. Finally, we review considerations for non-clear cell histologies in the refractory setting and mechanisms of resistance in mRCC.