Progression-free Survival After Second Line of Therapy for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma in Patients Treated with First-line Immunotherapy Combinations.

Immunotherapy (IO)-based combinations used to treat metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) include dual immune checkpoint inhibition with ipilimumab and nivolumab (IO/IO) and several combinations of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (TKI/IO). IO/IO and TKI/IO approaches have not been compared directly, and it is unknown whether patients who do not respond to first-line IO/IO can salvage long-term survival by receiving a second-line TKI. Progression-free survival after second-line therapy (PFS-2) evaluates the ability to be salvaged by second-line therapy. We retrospectively evaluated 173 patients treated with first-line IO/IO or TKI/IO for metastatic ccRCC at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and report PFS-2, overall survival, and response to second line of therapy (ORR2nd) for groups defined by first-line category. Although ORR2nd was significantly higher with IO/IO than with TKI/IO (47% vs 13%, p < 0.001), there was no significant difference in median PFS-2 for TKI/IO versus IO/IO (44 vs 23 mo, log-rank p = 0.1) or restricted mean survival time (RMST) for PFS-2 when adjusted for propensity score (33 vs 30 mo; difference 2.6 mo [95% confidence interval {CI}: -2.6, 7.9]; p = 0.3). There was also no significant difference in RMST for overall survival when adjusted for propensity score (38 vs 37 mo; group difference 1.0 mo [95% CI: -3.4, 5.5]; p = 0.7). These findings do not support a change in current utilization practices for IO/IO and TKI/IO treatment strategies for ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In cases of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, no significant difference was observed in progression-free survival after second line of therapy between patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab and those receiving a combination of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and an immune checkpoint inhibitor.

Matched Molecular Profiling of Cell-Free DNA and Tumor Tissue in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The clinical utility of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) as a biomarker for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remains unclear. We evaluated the validity of cfDNA-based genomic profiling in a large cohort of patients with ccRCC with matched next-generation sequencing (NGS) from primary tumor tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed paired NGS of tumor DNA and plasma cfDNA using the MSK-IMPACT platform in 110 patients with metastatic ccRCC. Tissues were profiled for variants and copy number alterations with germline comparison. Manual cross-genotyping between cfDNA and tumor tissue was performed. Deep sequencing with a higher sensitivity platform, MSK-ACCESS, was performed on a subset of cfDNA samples. Clinical data and radiographic tumor volumes were assessed to correlate cfDNA yield with treatment response and disease burden. RESULTS: Tumor tissue MSK-IMPACT testing identified 582 genomic alterations (GAs) across the cohort. Using standard thresholds for de novo variant calling in cfDNA, only 24 GAs were found by MSK-IMPACT in cfDNA in 7 of 110 patients (6%). With manual cross-genotyping, 210 GAs were detectable below thresholds in 74 patients (67%). Intrapatient concordance with tumor tissue was limited, including VHL (31.6%), PBRM1 (24.1%), and TP53 (52.9%). cfDNA profiling did not identify 3p loss because of low tumor fractions. Tumor volume was associated with cfDNA allele frequency, and VHL concordance was superior for patients with greater disease burden. CONCLUSION: cfDNA-based NGS profiling yielded low detection rates in this metastatic ccRCC cohort. Concordance with tumor profiling was low, even for truncal mutations such as VHL, and some findings in peripheral blood may represent clonal hematopoiesis. Routine cfDNA panel testing is not supported, and its application in biomarker efforts must account for these limitations.

Phase II Trial of Cabozantinib Plus Nivolumab in Patients With Non-Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and Genomic Correlates.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib plus nivolumab in a phase II trial in patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had advanced non-clear-cell renal carcinoma who underwent 0-1 prior systemic therapies excluding prior immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients received cabozantinib 40 mg once daily plus nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks or 480 mg once every 4 weeks. Cohort 1 enrolled patients with papillary, unclassified, or translocation-associated RCC; cohort 2 enrolled patients with chromophobe RCC. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1; secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Next-generation sequencing results were correlated with response. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were treated with a median follow-up of 13.1 months. Objective response rate for cohort 1 (n = 40) was 47.5% (95% CI, 31.5 to 63.9), with median progression-free survival of 12.5 months (95% CI, 6.3 to 16.4) and median overall survival of 28 months (95% CI, 16.3 to not evaluable). In cohort 2 (n = 7), no responses were observed; one patient had stable disease > 1 year. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 32% treated patients. Cabozantinib and nivolumab were discontinued because of toxicity in 13% and 17% of patients, respectively. Common mutations included NF2 and FH in cohort 1 and TP53 and PTEN in cohort 2. Objective responses were seen in 10/12 patients with either NF2 or FH mutations. CONCLUSION: Cabozantinib plus nivolumab showed promising efficacy in most non-clear-cell RCC variants tested in this trial, particularly those with prominent papillary features, whereas treatment effects were limited in chromophobe RCC. Genomic findings in non-clear-cell RCC variants warrant further study as predictors of response.

Comprehensive Molecular Characterization and Response to Therapy in Fumarate Hydratase-Deficient Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (FH-RCC) is a rare, aggressive form of RCC associated with hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC syndrome. Evidence for systemic therapy efficacy is lacking. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We studied clinical and genomic characteristics of FH-RCC, including response [objective response rate (ORR)] to systemic therapies and next-generation sequencing (NGS). Patients with metastatic FH-RCC, defined by presence of pathogenic germline or somatic FH mutation plus IHC evidence of FH loss, were included. RESULTS: A total of 28 of 32 included patients (median age 46; range, 20-74; M:F, 20:12) underwent germline testing; 23 (82%) harbored a pathogenic FH germline variant. Five (16%) were negative for germline FH mutations; all had biallelic somatic FH loss. Somatic NGS (31/32 patients) revealed co-occurring NF2 mutation most frequently (n = 5). Compared with clear-cell RCC, FH-RCC had a lower mutation count (median 2 vs. 4; P < 0.001) but higher fraction of genome altered (18.7% vs. 10.3%; P = 0.001). A total of 26 patients were evaluable for response to systemic therapy: mTOR/VEGF combination (n = 18, ORR 44%), VEGF monotherapy (n = 15, ORR 20%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (n = 8, ORR 0%), and mTOR monotherapy (n = 4, ORR 0%). No complete responses were seen. Median overall and progression-free survival were 21.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 14.3-33.8] and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.8-12.3), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although most FH-RCC tumors are due to germline FH alterations, a significant portion result from biallelic somatic FH loss. Both somatic and germline FH-RCC have similar molecular characteristics, with NF2 mutations, low tumor mutational burden, and high fraction of genome altered. Although immunotherapy alone produced no objective responses, combination mTOR/VEGF therapy showed encouraging results.

Systemic therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma after discontinuation of immune-oncology and VEGF targeted therapy combinations.

BACKGROUND: Several phase 3 studies reported positive results for combinations of Immune-Oncology (IO) and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) targeted therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC). However, there are limited data on outcomes to systemic therapy after IO-VEGF combinations. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with metastatic ccRCC treated at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic who initiated systemic therapy post IO-VEGF including combinations with VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (IO-TKI) and combinations with the anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab (IO-Bev). The study objectives were to evaluate the objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) on systemic therapy post IO-VEGF. RECIST v1.1 criteria were used to determine radiological responses and progression. Survival estimates were evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier methods and the log-rank test from the start of systemic therapy post IO-VEGF to the event of interest. RESULTS: A total of fifty-nine patients were treated post discontinuation of IO-VEGF regimens which included IO-Bev (n = 35; 59%) and IO-TKI (n = 24; 41%). Fifty-eight patients (98%) received IO-VEGF regimens as part of a clinical trial. Subsequent therapies included cabozantinib (n = 22; 37%), axitinib (n = 18; 31%), pazopanib (n = 4; 7%), lenvatinib and everolimus (n = 4; 7%), mTOR inhibitor monotherapy (n = 3; 5%), axitinib and dalantercept (n = 2; 3%), sunitinib (n = 1; 2%), sorafenib (n = 1; 2%), and treatment with agents on unreported clinical trials (n = 4; 7%). Patients treated on unreported clinical trials were excluded from the efficacy analysis. Post IO-VEGF, the ORR was 25% and median PFS was 12.0 months (95% CI, 8.2-24.5). Median OS was 24.5 months (95% CI, 12-NE) and 12 months OS rate was 63.3% (95% CI, 48.6-74.9). We observed no differences post IO-VEGF OS when comparing IO- TKI vs IO-Bev (Log-rank p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Post IO-VEGF, most patients received VEGFR-TKIs. In this setting, VEGFR-TKIs demonstrated clinical activity and remain a viable option for salvage therapy after progression on IO-VEGF.

Myocarditis with tremelimumab plus durvalumab combination therapy for endometrial cancer: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Fulminant myocarditis has been reported in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We present the first described case of acute immune-mediated myocarditis and myositis associated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab combination therapy. The patient was undergoing treatment for advanced endometrial cancer. CASE PRESENTATION: A 75-year-old Caucasian female presented with difficulty ambulating due to neck protraction, imbalance, and increased shortness of breath with exertion 3 weeks after her first durvalumab and tremelimumab administration for advanced endometrial cancer. While the patient's initial laboratory data showed an acute transaminitis and elevated creatine phosphokinase (CPK), consistent with myositis, she developed complete heart block and ventricular dysfunction, with elevated troponins. Endomyocardial biopsy confirmed a diagnosis of immune-mediated myocarditis. She was treated with high-dose steroids and mycophenolate mofetil, which led to eventual native conduction and left ventricular ejection fraction recovery. Upon discharge, she was titrated off of steroids over 8 weeks and her mycophenolate was subsequently stopped. A follow-up computed tomography scan revealed progression of metastatic disease. The patient remains alive using supplemental oxygen 3 months after admission. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab plus tremelimumab combination therapy can lead to fulminant immune-mediated myocarditis. This patient's myocarditis was amenable to treatment with high-dose intravenous steroids and mycophenolate.

Next-generation sequencing based detection of germline and somatic alterations in a patient with four metachronous primary tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple primary tumors (MPTs) are defined as two or more separate synchronous or metachronous neoplasms occurring in different sites in the same individual. These tumors differ in histology, as well as primary sites from which they arise. Risk factors associated with the occurrence of MPTs include germline alterations, exposure to prior cancer therapies, occupational hazards, and lifestyle and behavioral influences. CASE REPORT: We present a case of a patient who was diagnosed with four metachronous primary tumors. In 2013, she was diagnosed with serous proliferations associated with psammomatous bodies of primary peritoneal origin (pT3NxM0). This was followed by invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast (stage pT2N0Mx, histological grade III/III) in 2014, melanoma (stage pT2bNxMx) in 2016 that further advanced to the lung and brain in 2017, and a low-grade lung carcinoid in 2017. To better understand the biology of this patient's MPTs, we performed next-generation sequencing (NGS) to assess for both somatic and germline alterations. The treatment course for this patient aims to target the tumor with the strongest prognostic value, namely her malignant melanoma, and has contributed favorably to the overall survival of this patient. CONCLUSION: We report the clinical and genomic landscape of a patient with MPTs who had no identifiable unique somatic or germline mutations to explain her predilection to cancer. The treatment course and overall prognosis for this patient is important for understanding future cases with unrelated, metachronous MPTs, the occurrence of which cannot always be explained by underlying genetic mechanisms.