Impact of Synchronous versus Metachronous Metastasis on Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with First-line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-based Combinations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The impact of time of metastasis onset with respect toprimary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) diagnosis on survival outcomes is not well characterized in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations. Herein, we assessed differences in clinical outcomes between synchronous and metachronous metastatic RCC (mRCC). METHODS: Data for patients with mRCC treated with first-line ICI-based combination therapies between 2014 and 2023 were retrospectively collected. Patients were categorized as having synchronous metastasis if present within 3 mo of RCC diagnosis; metachronous metastasis was defined as metastasis >3 mo after primary diagnosis. Time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), and the disease control rate (DCR) were assessed. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Our analysis included 223 eligible patients (126 synchronous and 97 metachronous). Median TTF did not significantly differ between the synchronous and metachronous groups (9 vs 19.8 mo; p = 0.063). Median OS was significantly shorter in the synchronous group (28.0 vs 50.9 mo; p = 0.001). Similarly, patients with synchronous metachronous metastasis (58.7% vs. 78.4%; p = 0.002). On multivariable analyses, synchronous metastasis remained independently associated with worse OS and DCR. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In this hypothesis-generating study, patients with mRCC with synchronous metastasis who were treated with first-line ICI-based combinations have a poorer OS and worse DCR than those with metachronous mRCC. If these results are externally validated, time to metastasis could be included in prognostic models for mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study demonstrates that patients treated with current first-line immunotherapies, who present with metastasis at the initial diagnosis of kidney cancer have worse overall survival compared to those who develop metastasis later. These results can help physicians and patients understand life expectancy.

Phase 1b Trial Evaluating Tolerability and Activity of Targeted Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibition in Localized Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: We initiated a biomarker-informed preoperative study of infigratinib, a fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor, in patients with localized upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), a population with high unmet needs and tumor with a high frequency of FGFR3 alterations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with localized UTUC undergoing ureteroscopy or nephroureterectomy/ureterectomy were enrolled on a phase 1b trial (NCT04228042). Once-daily infigratinib 125 mg by mouth × 21 days (28-day cycle) was given for 2 cycles. Tolerability was monitored by Bayesian design and predefined stopping boundaries. The primary endpoint was tolerability, and the secondary endpoint was objective response based on tumor mapping, done after endoscopic biopsy and post-trial surgery. Total planned enrollment: 20 patients. Targeted sequencing performed using a NovaSeq 6000 solid tumor panel. RESULTS: From May 2021 to November 2022, 14 patients were enrolled, at which point the trial was closed due to termination of all infigratinib oncology trials. Two patients (14.3%) had treatment-terminating toxicities, well below the stopping threshold. Responses occurred in 6 (66.7%) of 9 patients with FGFR3 alterations. Responders had median tumor size reduction of 67%, with 3 of 5 patients initially planned for nephroureterectomy/ureterectomy converted to ureteroscopy. Median follow-up in responders was 24.7 months (14.9-28.9). CONCLUSIONS: In this first trial of targeted therapy for localized UTUC, FGFR inhibition was well tolerated and had significant activity in FGFR3 altered tumors. Renal preservation was enabled in a substantial proportion of participants. These data support the design of a biomarker-driven phase 2 trial of FGFR3 inhibition in this population with significant unmet clinical needs.

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.

CD70-Targeted Allogeneic CAR T-Cell Therapy for Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Therapeutic approaches for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remain limited; however, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies may offer novel treatment options. CTX130, an allogeneic CD70-targeting CAR T-cell product, was developed for the treatment of advanced or refractory ccRCC. We report that CTX130 showed favorable preclinical proliferation and cytotoxicity profiles and completely regressed RCC xenograft tumors. We also report results from 16 patients with relapsed/refractory ccRCC who received CTX130 in a phase I, multicenter, first-in-human clinical trial. No patients encountered dose-limiting toxicity, and disease control was achieved in 81.3% of patients. One patient remains in a durable complete response at 3 years. Finally, we report on a next-generation CAR T construct, CTX131, in which synergistic potency edits to CTX130 confer improved expansion and efficacy in preclinical studies. These data represent a proof of concept for the treatment of ccRCC and other CD70+ malignancies with CD70-targeted allogeneic CAR T cells. SIGNIFICANCE: Although the role of CAR T cells is well established in hematologic malignancies, the clinical experience in solid tumors has been disappointing. This clinical trial demonstrates the first complete response in a patient with RCC, reinforcing the potential benefit of CAR T cells in the treatment of solid tumors.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers.

Importance: While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol. Objective: To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings. Results: The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) (P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.

Randomized, Double-Blind Phase III Study of Pazopanib Versus Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Who Have No Evidence of Disease After Metastasectomy: ECOG-ACRIN E2810.

PURPOSE: Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for renal cell carcinoma are at high risk of recurrence. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test whether pazopanib would improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with NED after metastasectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily versus placebo for 52 weeks. The study was designed to observe an improvement in DFS from 25% to 45% with pazopanib at 3 years, corresponding to 42% reduction in the DFS event rate. RESULTS: From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events (92% information). The study did not meet its primary end point. An updated analysis at 60.5-month median follow-up from random assignment (95% CI, 59.3 to 71.0) showed that the 3-year DFS was 27.4% (95% CI, 17.9 to 41.7) for pazopanib and 21.9% (95% CI, 13.3 to 36.2) for placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) for DFS was 0.90 ([95% CI, 0.60 to 1.34]; Pone-sided = .29) in favor of pazopanib. Three-year overall survival (OS) was 81.9% (95% CI, 72.7 to 92.2) for pazopanib and 91.4% (95% CI, 84.4 to 98.9) for placebo. The HR for OS was 2.55 (95% CI, 1.23 to 5.27) in favor of placebo (Ptwo-sided = .012). Health-related quality-of-life measures deteriorated in the pazopanib group during the treatment period. CONCLUSION: Pazopanib did not improve DFS as the primary end point compared with blinded placebo in patients with mRCC with NED after metastasectomy. In addition, there was a concerning trend favoring placebo in OS.

Tumor Mutational Burden in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Response to Checkpoint Inhibition.

This single-center cohort study assesses the association of tumor mutational burden status in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Outcomes of Patients with Brain Metastases from Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving First-line Therapies: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

Patients with brain metastases (BrM) from renal cell carcinoma and their outcomes are not well characterized owing to frequent exclusion of this population from clinical trials. We analyzed data for patients with or without BrM using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC). A total of 389/4799 patients (8.1%) had BrM on initiation of systemic therapy. First-line immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy was associated with longer median overall survival (OS; 32.7 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-not reached) versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy (20.6 mo, 95% CI 15.7-24.5; p = 0.019), as were intensive focal therapies with stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (31.4 mo, 95% CI 22.3-37.5) versus whole-brain radiotherapy alone or no focal therapy (16.5 mo, 95% CI 10.2-21.1; p = 0.028). On multivariable analysis, IO-based regimens (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.97; p = 0.040) and stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.78; p = 0.003) were independently associated with longer OS, as was IMDC favorable or intermediate risk (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.66; p < 0.001). Intensive systemic and focal therapies were associated with better prognosis in this population. Further studies should explore the clinical effectiveness of multimodal strategies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In a large group of patients with advanced kidney cancer, we found that 8.1% had brain metastases when starting systemic therapy. Patients with brain metastases had significantly poorer prognosis than those without brain metastases. Receipt of combination immunotherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, or neurosurgery was associated with longer overall survival.

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.

Immuno-Oncology Advances in Genitourinary Cancers.

Immuno-oncology (IO) has made monumental gains in the past decade in the genitourinary space. In this review, we highlight advances with IO in renal cell carcinoma where it now has become standard-of-care frontline therapy in the metastatic setting but also discuss challenges with the initial approach. In urothelial carcinoma, we discuss the growing use of IO including exciting recent updates with IO-based regimens that may soon become the new standard of care. We further discuss difficulties with IO in prostate cancer, germ cell tumors, and penile squamous cell carcinoma. Finally, we highlight advances in IO approaches beyond checkpoint inhibition including the role of the gut microbiome and T-cell redirecting therapies.

Assessment of eligibility criteria in renal cell carcinoma trials evaluating systemic therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the restrictiveness of eligibility criteria in contemporary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials, using recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Friends of Cancer Research (FCR) initiative. METHODS: vPhase I-III trials assessing systemic therapies in patients with RCC starting between 30 June 2012 and 30 June 2022 were identified. Eligibility criteria regarding brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were identified and stratified into three groups: exclusion, conditional inclusion, and not reported. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of eligibility criteria. Fisher's exact test or chi-square test were used to calculate their associations with certain trial characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 423 RCC trials were initially identified of which 112 (26.5%) had sufficient accessible information. Exclusion of patients with HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, brain metastases, and prior or concurrent malignancies were reported in 74.1%, 53.6%, 33.0%, and 8.0% of trials, respectively. In the context of HIV and HBV/HCV infection, patients were largely excluded from trials evaluating immunotherapy (94.4% and 77.8%, respectively). In addition, brain metastases were excluded in trials assessing targeted therapy (36.4%), combined therapy (33.3%), and immunotherapy (22.2%). Exclusion of patients with prior or concurrent malignancies was less frequently reported, accounting for 9.1%, 8.3%, and 5.6% targeted therapy, combined therapy and immunotherapy trials, respectively. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of RCC trials utilise restrictive eligibility criteria, excluding patients with fairly prevalent comorbidities. Implementing the ASCO-FCR recommendations will ensure resulting data are more inclusive and aligned with patient populations in the real-world.

The 5th Kidney Cancer Research Summit: Research Accelerating Cures for Renal Cell Carcinoma in 2023.

The 5th Kidney Cancer Research Summit was a hybrid event hosted in Boston, MA in July 2023. As in previous editions, the conference attracted a wide representation of global thought leaders in kidney cancer spanning all stages of clinical and laboratory research. Sessions covered tumor metabolism, novel immune pathways, advances in clinical trials and immunotherapy, and progress toward biomarkers. The abstract presentations were published as a supplement in The Oncologist (https://academic.oup.com/oncolo/issue/28/Supplement_1). Aiming to be more concise than comprehensive, this commentary summarizes the most important emerging areas of kidney cancer research discussed and debated among the stakeholders at the conference, with relevant updates that have occurred since.

Melanoma and microbiota: Current understanding and future directions.

Over the last decade, the composition of the gut microbiota has been found to correlate with the outcomes of cancer patients treated with immunotherapy. Accumulating evidence points to the various mechanisms by which intestinal bacteria act on distal tumors and how to harness this complex ecosystem to circumvent primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we review the state of the microbiota field in the context of melanoma, the recent breakthroughs in defining microbial modes of action, and how to modulate the microbiota to enhance response to cancer immunotherapy. The host-microbe interaction may be deciphered by the use of "omics" technologies, and will guide patient stratification and the development of microbiota-centered interventions. Efforts needed to advance the field and current gaps of knowledge are also discussed.

Characterization of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Deferred, Upfront, or No Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in the Era of Combination Immunotherapy: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has not yet been well characterized in the era of combination immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate characteristics and outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who received immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy according to CN status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), patients with mRCC who received frontline IO-based combinations were included. Upfront CN was defined as CN up to 3 mo before diagnosis of metastatic disease but before systemic therapy initiation. Deferred CN was defined as CN after systemic therapy initiation. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) from initiation of systemic therapy was estimated via Cox proportional-hazards regression. A 12-mo landmark time and a time-varying covariate for CN status were used to mitigate potential bias. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 385 patients eligible for landmark analysis, 24, 182, and 179 underwent deferred CN, upfront CN, and no CN, respectively. Patients in the no CN subgroup were older (63 yr vs 57 yr in the deferred CN subgroup and 60 yr in the upfront CN subgroup; p = 0.001) and a higher proportion had bone metastases (44% vs 26% in the deferred CN subgroup and 23% in the upfront CN subgroup; p < 0.001). A lower proportion of patients in the upfront CN subgroup had IMDC poor risk (23% vs 43% in the no CN subgroup and 47% in the deferred CN subgroup; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, CN receipt was an independent favorable prognostic factor (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.78; p = 0.005). The study is limited by the lack of randomization and its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Despite changes in practice patterns with the advent of novel therapeutic agents, CN may still serve as an effective surgical intervention in carefully selected patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with metastatic kidney cancer, surgery to remove the primary tumor was traditionally the treatment of choice, but immunotherapy drugs are now another option for these patients. We analyzed data for contemporary patients with metastatic kidney cancer who received combination immunotherapy as their first treatment. We found that in selected patients receiving immunotherapy, surgery to remove the primary tumor as well can result in better prognosis.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin plus nivolumab as organ-sparing treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a phase 2 trial.

Cystectomy is a standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but it is life-altering. We initiated a phase 2 study in which patients with MIBC received four cycles of gemcitabine, cisplatin, plus nivolumab followed by clinical restaging. Patients achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) could proceed without cystectomy. The co-primary objectives were to assess the cCR rate and the positive predictive value of cCR for a composite outcome: 2-year metastasis-free survival in patients forgoing immediate cystectomy or

Anxiety, Depression, and Coping Strategies during Chemotherapy Treatment: A Comparison of Older and Younger Adults with Advanced Cancer in Brazil.

We sought to examine differences in anxiety, depression and coping strategies among younger (<64-year old) and older (≥65-year old) patients. Patients were assessed at baseline (T1), mid-point (T2) and on the last day of treatment (T3) using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Ways of Coping. A linear mixed modeling approach was used. The study included 200 patients (gender: 70% women; diagnosis: 30% breast, 22% hematological, 18% gastrointestinal; disease stage: 60% advanced). Older patients who used an emotion-focused coping strategy had a greater decrease in anxiety at T3 compared to those that used problem-focused coping (p = .002).

Racial and ethnic differences in perceptions of germline or somatic DNA sequencing among patients with advanced prostate, urothelial, or kidney cancer.

We sought to determine racial and ethnic differences in perceptions (quality of communication, expectations, and concerns) of germline or somatic DNA sequencing (genomic profiling). Patients with prostate, urothelial, or kidney cancer were surveyed using a questionnaire that assessed previous experience, beliefs, expectations, and concerns regarding genomic profiling. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to identify factors associated with patients' perceptions of genomic profiling. A total of 150 consecutive patients were enrolled. The majority were male (74%) with a mean age of 68 years old. Most patients underwent somatic testing (54%), 24% undertook germline testing, and 21% undertook both tests. Significant differences were found across racial and/or ethnicity concerning factors that could have influenced patients' decision to pursue genomic profiling, including ability to guide the type of treatment (White: 54.1% vs. other ethnic groups: 43.9%, p = 0.04) and potential to improve treatment response (White: 10.1% vs. other ethnic groups: 22.0%, p = 0.04). Other ethnic group of patients were more concerned about learning that the cancer was less treatable or aggressive (43.8% vs. 27.7%, p = 0.01) and anxious about what would be learnt from genomic profiling (34.4% vs. 21.3, p = 0.01) as compared to White patients. Our findings reinforce the importance of developing culturally tailored education to help patients participate actively in decisions about genomic profiling.