Highly variable timing renders immunotherapy efficacy and toxicity impractical biomarkers of one another in clinical practice.

Background: A useful clinical biomarker requires not only association but also a consistent temporal relationship. For instance, chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and epidermal growth-factor inhibitor-related acneiform rash both occur within weeks of treatment initiation, thereby providing information prior to efficacy assessment. Although immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-associated immune-related adverse events (irAE) have been associated with therapeutic benefit, irAE may have delayed and highly variable onset. To determine whether ICI efficacy and irAE could serve as clinically useful biomarkers for predicting each other, we determined the temporal relationship between initial efficacy assessment and irAE onset in a diverse population treated with ICI. Methods: Using two-sided Fisher exact and Cochran-Armitage tests, we determined the relative timing of initial efficacy assessment and irAE occurrence in a cohort of 155 ICI-treated patients (median age 68 years, 40% women). Results: Initial efficacy assessment was performed a median of 50 days [interquartile range (IQR) 39-59 days] after ICI initiation; median time to any irAE was 77 days (IQR 28-145 days) after ICI initiation. Median time to first irAE was 42 days (IQR 20-88 days). Overall, 58% of any irAE and 47% of first irAE occurred after initial efficacy assessment. For clinically significant (grade ≥2) irAE, 60% of any and 53% of first occurred after initial efficacy assessment. The likelihood of any future irAE did not differ according to response (45% for complete or partial response vs. 47% for other cases; P=1). In landmark analyses controlling for clinical and toxicity follow-up, patients demonstrating greater tumor shrinkage at initial efficacy assessment were more likely to develop future grade ≥2 (P=0.05) and multi-organ (P=0.02) irAE. Conclusions: In contrast to that seen with chemotherapy and molecularly targeted therapies, the temporal relationship between ICI efficacy and toxicity is complex and bidirectional. In practice, neither parameter can be routinely relied on as a clinical biomarker to predict the other.

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.

Renal cell carcinoma histologic subtypes exhibit distinct transcriptional profiles.

Molecular profiling of clear cell RCC (ccRCC) tumors of clinical trial patients has identified distinct transcriptomic signatures with predictive value, yet data in non-clear cell variants (nccRCC) are lacking. We examined the transcriptional profiles of RCC tumors representing key molecular pathways, from a multi-institutional, real-world patient cohort, including ccRCC (n = 508) and centrally-reviewed nccRCC (n = 149) samples. ccRCC had increased angiogenesis signature scores compared to the heterogeneous group of nccRCC tumors (mean z-score 0.37 vs -0.99, P < 0.001), while cell cycle, fatty acid oxidation (FAO)/AMPK signaling, fatty acid synthesis (FAS)/pentose phosphate signature scores were increased in one or more nccRCC subtypes. Among both ccRCC and nccRCC tumors, T-effector scores statistically correlated with increased immune cell infiltration and were more commonly associated with immunotherapy-related markers (PD-L1+/TMB-High/MSI-High). In conclusion, this study provides evidence of differential gene transcriptional profiles among ccRCC vs nccRCC tumors, providing new insights for optimizing personalized and histology-specific therapeutic strategies for patients with advanced RCC.

Immunomodulatory response to neoadjuvant nivolumab in non-metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Novel perioperative strategies are needed to reduce recurrence rates in patients undergoing nephrectomy for high-risk, non-metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We conducted a prospective, phase I trial of neoadjuvant nivolumab prior to nephrectomy in 15 evaluable patients with non-metastatic ccRCC. We leveraged tissue from that cohort to elucidate the effects of PD-1 inhibition on immune cell populations in ccRCC and correlate the evolving immune milieu with anti-PD-1 response. We found that nivolumab durably induces a pro-inflammatory state within the primary tumor, and baseline immune infiltration within the primary tumor correlates with nivolumab responsiveness. Nivolumab increases CTLA-4 expression in the primary tumor, and subsequent nephrectomy increases circulating concentrations of sPD-L1, sPD-L3 (sB7-H3), and s4-1BB. These findings form the basis to consider neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for high-risk ccRCC while the tumor remains in situ and provide the rationale for perioperative strategies of novel ICI combinations.

Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

Chronic Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but are associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including colitis. Growing evidence suggests proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) increase the risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Given the pathophysiological overlap between IBD and ICI colitis, we sought to evaluate the relationship between PPI use and ICI colitis in mRCC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of adult patients who received ICI therapy for mRCC between 2015 and 2018 at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center affiliated hospitals. Clinical characteristics, oncological outcomes, ICI colitis details, and PPI use details were collected by manual chart review. The diagnosis of ICI colitis was made via biopsy when available, or by clinical criteria (symptoms and response to immunosuppressive therapy) when biopsy specimens were unavailable or inconclusive. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the potential contribution of PPIs to ICI colitis. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients received ICI therapy for mRCC, of which 16 (9.1%) were diagnosed with ICI colitis. Patients with ICI colitis presented with elevated stool lactoferritin and calprotectin and a wide range of endoscopic and histologic findings. There were no significant differences between patients with and without ICI colitis in age, gender, medical comorbidities, RCC history, and overall survival. However, exposure to ipilimumab and PPI use were more frequently observed in patients with ICI colitis than those without. In univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses, exposure to ipilimumab and chronic use of PPIs > 8 weeks were significantly associated with ICI colitis. CONCLUSION: In addition to ipilimumab use, chronic use of PPIs may be associated with ICI colitis in patients with mRCC.

A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of Initial Treatment Choice in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Prior to the Immunotherapy Era: The MaRCC Registry Experience.

INTRODUCTION: The Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (MaRCC) Registry provides prospective data on real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with mRCC and no prior systemic therapy were enrolled at academic and community sites. End of study data collection was in March 2019. Outcomes included overall survival (OS). A survey of treating physicians assessed reasons for treatment initiations and discontinuations. RESULTS: Overall, 376 patients with mRCC initiated first-line therapy; 171 (45.5%) received pazopanib, 75 (19.9%) sunitinib, and 74 (19.7%) participated in a clinical trial. Median (95% confidence interval) OS was longest in the clinical trial group (50.3 [35.8-not reached] months) versus pazopanib (39.0 [29.7-50.9] months) and sunitinib 26.2 [19.9-61.5] months). Non-clear cell RCC (21.5% of patients) was associated with worse median OS than clear cell RCC (18.0 vs. 47.3 months). Differences in baseline characteristics, treatment starting dose, and relative dose exposure among treatment groups suggest selection bias. Survey results revealed a de-emphasis on quality of life, toxicity, and patient preference compared with efficacy in treatment selection. CONCLUSION: The MaRCC Registry gives insights into real-world first-line treatment selection, outcomes, and physician rationale regarding initial treatment selection prior to the immunotherapy era. Differences in outcomes between clinical trial and off-study patients reflect the difficulty in translating trial results to real-world patients, and emphasize the need to broaden clinical trial eligibility. Physician emphasis on efficacy over quality of life and toxicity suggests more data and education are needed regarding these endpoints.

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab in Patients with High-risk Nonmetastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade represents a novel approach for potentially decreasing the risk of recurrence in patients with nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In this early phase clincal tiral, we evaluated the safety and tolerability of neoadjuvant treatment with the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab in patients with nonmetastatic high-risk RCC. Nonprimary endpoints included objective radiographic tumor response rate, immune-related pathologic response rate, quality of life alterations, and metastasis-free and overall survival. In total, 17 patients were enrolled in this study and underwent surgery without a delay after receiving three every-2-wk doses of neoadjuvant nivolumab. Adverse events (AEs) of any grade occurred in 14 (82.4%) patients, with two (11.8%) experiencing grade 3 events. Ten (58.8%) patients experienced an AE of any grade potentially attributable to nivolumab (all grade 1-2), and no grade 4-5 AEs occurred regardless of treatment attribution. The most common AEs were grade 1 fatigue (41.2%), grade 1 pruritis (29.4%), and grade 1 rash (29.4%). All evaluable patients had stable disease as per established radiographic criteria, with one (6.7%) demonstrating features of an immune-related pathologic response. Quality of life remained stable during treatment, with improvements relative to baseline noted at ≥6 mo postoperatively. Metastasis-free survival and overall survival were 85.1% and 100% at 2 yr, respectively. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we evaluated the safety and tolerability of preoperative administration of three doses of the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab in patients with clinically localized high-risk renal cell carcinoma. We demonstrated the safety of this approach and found that, although most patients will not experience a radiographic response to treatment, a subset may have features of an immune-related pathologic response.

From Basic Science to Clinical Translation in Kidney Cancer: A Report from the Second Kidney Cancer Research Summit.

The second Kidney Cancer Research Summit was held virtually in October 2020. The meeting gathered worldwide experts in the field of kidney cancer, including basic, translational, and clinical scientists as well as patient advocates. Novel studies were presented, addressing areas of unmet need related to different topics. These include novel metabolic targets, promising immunotherapeutic regimens, predictive genomic and transcriptomic biomarkers, and variant histologies of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). With the development of pioneering technologies, and an unprecedented commitment to kidney cancer research, the field has tremendously evolved. This perspective aims to summarize the different sessions of the conference, outline major advances in the understanding of RCC and discuss current challenges faced by the field.

Treatment-free Survival after Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy versus Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 42-Month Results of the CheckMate 214 Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients discontinuing immuno-oncology regimens may experience periods of disease control without need for ongoing anticancer therapy, but toxicity may persist. We describe treatment-free survival (TFS), with and without toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were analyzed from the randomized phase III CheckMate 214 trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 550) versus sunitinib (n = 546) for treatment-naïve, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). TFS was estimated by the 42-month restricted mean times defined by the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for two time-to-event endpoints defined from randomization: time to protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. TFS was subdivided as TFS with and without toxicity by counting days with ≥1 grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). RESULTS: At 42 months since randomization, 52% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 39% of sunitinib intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive; 18% and 5% surviving treatment-free, respectively. Among favorable-risk patients, 70% and 73% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and sunitinib patients were alive; 20% and 9% treatment-free. Over the 42-month period, mean TFS was over twice as long after nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk (6.9 vs. 3.1 months) and three times as long for favorable-risk patients (11.0 vs. 3.7 months). Mean TFS with grade ≥3 TRAEs was a small proportion of time for both treatments (0.6 vs. 0.3 months after nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk, and 0.9 vs. 0.3 months for favorable-risk patients). CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for aRCC spent more survival time treatment-free without toxicity versus those on sunitinib, regardless of risk group.

Active surveillance of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a prospective observational study (MaRCC).

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow-growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient-related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2-sample rank-sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess survival. RESULTS: Of 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25-44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST. CONCLUSIONS: AS occurs frequently (32%) in real-world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.

Summary From the First Kidney Cancer Research Summit, September 12-13, 2019: A Focus on Translational Research.

Kidney cancer is one of the 10 most common cancers both in the United States and worldwide. Until this year, there had not previously been a conference focused on translational studies in the broad and heterogeneous group of kidney cancers. Therefore, a group of researchers, clinicians, and patient advocates dedicated to renal cell carcinoma launched the Kidney Cancer Research Summit (KCRS) to spur collaboration and further therapeutic advances in these tumors. This commentary aims to summarize the oral presentations and serve as a record for future iterations of this meeting. The KCRS sessions addressed the tumor microenvironment, novel methods of drug delivery, single cell sequencing strategies, novel immune checkpoint blockade and cellular therapies, predictive biomarkers, and rare variants of kidney cancers. In addition, the meeting included 2 sessions to promote scientific mentoring and kidney cancer research collaborations. A subsequent KCRS will be planned for the fall of 2020.

Clinical Activity of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab in Patients With Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab has been approved for intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the activity in non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from Cleveland Clinic and the University of Texas Southwestern who had received ipilimumab plus nivolumab for metastatic nccRCC from October 2017 to May 2019 were retrospectively identified. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab was administered in accordance with the CHECKMATE 214 trial. Imaging was obtained at baseline and every 12 weeks. The baseline patient characteristics, objective response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0, were analyzed. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were identified. The median age was 59 years (range, 32-81 years), 77.8% were men, and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 (38%) or 1 (50%). The median treatment duration was 2.4 months (range, 0.7-12.3 months). The non-clear cell histologic types included 6 papillary, 5 chromophobe, 3 unclassified, 2 adenocarcinoma of renal origin, 1 translocation, and 1 medullary. Most had an intermediate (66%) or poor (22%) International Metastatic Database Consortium risk. The best objective response included 6 partial responses (PRs; 33.3%) and 3 with stable disease (16.7%). Of the patients with a PR, the median time to the best response was 3.0 months, and median duration of the PR was 4.3 months. The median progression-free survival was 7.1 months. All-grade TRAEs were noted in 11 patients (61.1%) and included colitis (22%), hepatotoxicity (16%), rash (11%), and fatigue (11%). Eleven patients (61%) had TRAEs requiring high-dose glucocorticoids (> 40 mg of prednisone equivalent daily). CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab demonstrated objective responses and notable toxicity in patients with nccRCC.

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up. METHODS: Patients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory. RESULTS: Among ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77-1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46-0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%-12.8% vs 1.4%-5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months' minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02231749.

Salvage Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma After Prior Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The safety and activity of the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients who have received prior ICI targeting the programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway remains unknown. We evaluated ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with metastatic RCC after prior treatment with anti-PD-1 pathway-targeted therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic RCC who received prior anti-PD-1 pathway-targeted therapy and subsequently received ipilimumab and nivolumab were reviewed. Objective response rate and progression-free survival per investigator assessment were recorded. Toxicity of ipilimumab and nivolumab was also assessed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients with metastatic RCC were included. All patients (100%) received prior ICIs targeting the PD-1 pathway. The median age was 62 years (range, 21-82 years). At a median follow-up of 12 months, the objective response rate to ipilimumab and nivolumab was 20%. The median progression-free survival while on ipilimumab and nivolumab was 4 months (range, 0.8-19 months). Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade with ipilimumab and nivolumab were recorded in 29 (64%) of the 45 patients; grade 3 irAEs were recorded in 6 (13%) of the 45 patients. CONCLUSION: Ipilimumab and nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with acceptable toxicity in patients with metastatic RCC who had prior treatment with checkpoint inhibition.

Improved survival after cytoreductive nephrectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the contemporary immunotherapy era: An analysis of the National Cancer Database.

OBJECTIVES: Despite immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) approval for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2015, cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) is guided by extrapolation from earlier classes of therapy. We evaluated survival outcomes, timing, and safety of combining CN with modern immunotherapy (IO) for mRCC. METHODS: From 96,329 renal cancer cases reported to the NCDB between 2015 and 2016, we analyzed 391 surgical candidates diagnosed with clear cell mRCC treated with IO ± CN and no other systemic therapies. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS) stratified by the performance of CN (CN + IO vs. IO alone). Secondary outcomes included OS stratified by the timing of CN, pathologic findings, and perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Of 391 patients, 221 (56.5%) received CN + IO and 170 (43.5%) received IO only. Across a median follow-up of 14.7 months, patients who underwent CN + IO had superior OS (median NR vs. 11.6 months; hazard ratio 0.23, P < 0.001), which was upheld on multivariable analyses. IO before CN resulted in lower pT stage, grade, tumor size, and lymphovascular invasion rates compared to upfront CN. Two of 20 patients (10%) undergoing CN post-IO achieved complete pathologic response in the primary tumor (pT0). There were no positive surgical margins, 30-day readmissions, or prolonged length of stay in patients undergoing delayed CN. CONCLUSION: Using a large, national, registry-based cohort, we provide the first report of survival outcomes in mRCC patients treated with CN combined with modern IO. Our findings support an oncologic role for CN in the ICI era and provide preliminary evidence regarding the timing and safety of CN relative to IO administration.

Rational Approaches to Treatment Duration with Immunotherapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment paradigm for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The appropriate duration for ICI treatment is not clear, however. Analyses of landmark trials reveal that some patients exhibit sustained durable responses to ICIs even after treatment discontinuation, resulting in prolonged treatment-free intervals that can mitigate potential toxicities and the considerable financial burden associated with treatment. Adaptive approaches with PD1 monotherapy and combination immunotherapy tailored to tumor response are ongoing. More efforts will be needed to clarify the ideal ICI dosing regimen to maximize oncological benefit while minimizing treatment-related adverse effects and costs. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed considerations surrounding treatment strategies when using immunotherapy to treat patients with kidney cancer. It is clear that some patients can experience prolonged cancer control when discontinuing immunotherapy. However, individualized approaches will be necessary to strike a balance between optimizing patient outcomes and reducing unnecessary side effects and cost.

Pathologic response and surgical outcomes in patients undergoing nephrectomy following receipt of immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pathologic response, safety, and feasibility of nephrectomy following receipt of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Patients who underwent nephrectomy for RCC after exposure to nivolumab monotherapy or combination ipilimumab/nivolumab were reviewed. Primary surgical outcomes included operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), readmission rates, and complication rates. Pathologic response in the primary and metastatic sites constituted secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Eleven nephrectomies (10 radical, 1 partial) were performed in 10 patients after ICI with median postoperative follow-up 180 days. Six patients received 1 to 4 cycles of ipilimumab/nivolumab, while 5 received 2 to 12 infusions of nivolumab preoperatively. Five surgeries were performed laparoscopically, and 4 patients underwent concomitant thrombectomy. One patient exhibited complete response (pT0) to ICI, and 3/4 patients who underwent metastasectomy for hepatic, pulmonary, or adrenal lesions exhibited no detectable malignancy in any of the metastases resected. No patients experienced any major intraoperative complications, and all surgical margins were negative. Median OT, EBL, and LOS were 180 minutes, 100 ml, and 4 days, respectively. Four patients experienced a complication, including 3 that were addressed with interventional radiology procedures. One patient died of progressive disease >3 months after surgery, and 1 patient succumbed to pulmonary embolism complicated by sepsis. No complications or readmissions were noted in 6 patients. CONCLUSION: Nephrectomy following ICI for RCC is safe and technically feasible with favorable surgical outcomes and pathologic response. Timing of the nephrectomy relative to checkpoint dosing did not seem to impact outcome. Biopsies of lesions responding radiographically to ICI may warrant attention prior to surgical excision.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.