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.

Clinical implications of AR alterations in advanced prostate cancer: a multi-institutional collaboration.

BACKGROUND: AR gene alterations can develop in response to pressure of testosterone suppression and androgen receptor targeting agents (ARTA). Despite this, the relevance of these gene alterations in the context of ARTA treatment and clinical outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: Patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who had undergone genomic testing and received ARTA treatment were identified in the Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine Multi-Institutional Collaborative Effort (PROMISE) database. Patients were stratified according to the timing of genomic testing relative to the first ARTA treatment (pre-/post-ARTA). Clinical outcomes such as time to progression, PSA response, and overall survival were compared based on alteration types. RESULTS: In total, 540 CRPC patients who received ARTA and had tissue-based (n = 321) and/or blood-based (n = 244) genomic sequencing were identified. Median age was 62 years (range 39-90) at the time of the diagnosis. Majority were White (72.2%) and had metastatic disease (92.6%) at the time of the first ARTA treatment. Pre-ARTA genomic testing was available in 24.8% of the patients, and AR mutations and amplifications were observed in 8.2% and 13.1% of the patients, respectively. Further, time to progression was longer in patients with AR amplifications (25.7 months) compared to those without an AR alteration (9.6 months; p = 0.03). In the post-ARTA group (n = 406), AR mutations and AR amplifications were observed in 18.5% and 35.7% of the patients, respectively. The most common mutation in post-ARTA group was L702H (9.9%). CONCLUSION: In this real-world clinicogenomics database-driven study we explored the development of AR alterations and their association with ARTA treatment outcomes. Our study showed that AR amplifications are associated with longer time to progression on first ARTA treatment. Further prospective studies are needed to optimize therapeutic strategies for patients with AR alterations.

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.

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.

Association Between Time-of-Day of Immune Checkpoint Blockade Administration and Outcomes in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical evidence demonstrating circadian rhythmicity within the immune system provides a rationale for hypothesis that immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) infusion time-of-day may serve as an actionable mechanism to improve outcomes. Herein, we explore the association between ICI time of infusion (TOI) and outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: Data from patients with mRCC who received nivolumab or nivolumab/ipilimumab, in first- or second-line were retrospectively collected. Patients who received < 20% of infusions after 16:30 were assigned to the early TOI sub-cohort, while the rest were assigned to the late TOI sub-cohort. Clinical outcomes were compared across the 2 groups. RESULTS: Among 135 patients included, 89 (65.9%) and 46 (34.1%) were assigned to early and late TOI sub-cohorts, respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable across the 2 sub-cohorts. Objective response rate (ORR) was 36.0% with early TOI versus 29.5% with late TOI (P = .157). Median time to treatment failure (TTF) was 9.5 months in the early TOI sub-cohort versus 4.6 months in the late TOI sub-cohort with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.405 (95% CI, 0.919-2.149; P = .11) in univariate analysis and 1.694 (95% CI, 1.064-2.698; P = .026) in multivariate analysis. Higher cut offs allocating patients into the late TOI sub-cohort yielded an incremental increase in the HR for TTF and overall survival (OS) that reached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mRCC, early TOI yielded a numerical increase in ORR, TTF and OS, with the TTF difference reaching significance in multivariate analysis. Prospective randomized studies are warranted to examine the impact of chronomodulation on outcomes with ICIs in mRCC.

Examining Exclusion Criteria in Advanced Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials: An Assessment of recommendations From the American Society Of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research.

PURPOSE: Eligibility criteria illustrate the characteristics of the study population and promote the safety of participants. However, overreliance on restrictive eligibility criteria may limit the generalizability of outcomes. As a result, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) issued statements to curtail these challenges. In this study, we aimed to assess restrictiveness in eligibility criteria across advanced prostate cancer clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all phase I, II, and III advanced prostate cancer clinical trials between June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2022, through Clinicaltrials.gov. We evaluated whether a clinical trial excluded, conditionally included, or did not report 4 common criteria: brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, and hepatitis B virus (HBV)/hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Performance status (PS) criteria were recorded based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale. RESULTS: Out of 699 clinical trials within our search strategy, 265 (37.9%) trials possessed all the required data and were included in our analysis. The most common excluded condition of our interest was brain metastases (60.8%), followed by HIV positivity (46.4%), HBV/HCV positivity (46.0%), and concurrent malignancies (15.5%). Additionally, 50.9% of clinical trials only included patients with ECOG PS 0 to 1. HIV and HBV/HCV infection were exclusion criteria of 22 (80.8%) and 19 (73.1%) immunotherapy trials, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, or low-functioning PS were overly restricted from participating in advanced prostate clinical trials. Advocating for broader criteria may ameliorate generalizability.

Changes in Perception of Cure Among Patients With Genitourinary Cancers Initiating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: We explored changes in perceptions of cure among patients with genitourinary (GU) cancers starting Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This longitudinal study assessed patients before starting therapy and 3-months later with a questionnaire that included patient perceptions of ICIs and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety scale. General linear modeling was used to investigate changes in expectation of cure over time, and chi-square tests were used to determine the association between expectation of cure and perceptions of ICIs and anxiety. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients were recruited (73% male, 84% diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma). The proportion of patients who possessed an accurate expectation of cure increased over time (55.6%-66.7%, P = .001). An accurate expectation of cure was associated with lower rates of anxiety over time. Patients with inaccurate expectation of cure reported more severe side effects and worse self-reported ECOG score at the follow-up assessment (P = .04). CONCLUSION: We found that patients with GU metastatic cancer treated with ICI therapy have increasingly accurate expectations of cure over time. Accurate expectation of cure is associated with decreased anxiety. Further research is needed to fully explore this dynamic over time and help inform interventions that can help patients develop accurate expectations.

Ultrasensitive Circulating Tumor DNA Pilot Study Distinguishes Complete Response and Partial Response With Immunotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been validated across multiple indications in the adjuvant and surveillance settings. We evaluated whether targeted digital sequencing (TARDIS) may distinguish a partial response (PR) from a complete response (CR) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had mRCC that yielded a PR or CR to ICI therapy. Peripheral blood was obtained at a single time point for ctDNA analysis. TARDIS was used for quantification of average variant allele fractions (VAFs). Our primary objective was to determine the association between VAFs and depth of response (PR v CR). A secondary objective was to determine whether VAFs were associated with disease progression. RESULTS: Twelve patients were analyzed, nine of whom achieved a PR (75%). Patients received either nivolumab monotherapy (50%) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (50%). ctDNA analysis incorporated an average of 30 patient-specific mutations (range, 19-35); average coverage depth was 103,342 reads per target. TARDIS quantified a significant difference in VAFs between PR and CR (median, 0.181% [IQR, 0.077%-0.420%] v 0.007% [IQR, 0.0%-0.028%], respectively [P = .014]). Of the 12 patients in the series, six patients demonstrated radiographic progression subsequent to ctDNA assessment. Patients who progressed on subsequent scans had significantly higher ctDNA than those who maintained their response (median, 0.362% [IQR, 0.181%-2.71%] v 0.033% [IQR, 0.007%-0.077%], respectively [P = .026]). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, TARDIS accurately differentiated PR from CR among patients with mRCC receiving immunotherapy, and also prospectively identified patients at risk for subsequent progression. Given these findings, we envision subsequent studies that validate these results and investigate the utility of this assay to discern appropriate candidates for discontinuation of immunotherapy.

Genomic and Transcriptomic Predictors of Response from Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Patients with Oligoprogressive Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been shown to be safe and effective for delaying systemic treatment change among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this study, we sought to assess the genomic signatures of patients with mRCC who underwent SBRT for oligoprogression. A total of 30 patients with oligoprogressive disease were identified, the majority of whom had clear cell renal cell carcinoma (83.3%) and were receiving first-line treatment (53.3%). Genomic and transcriptomic sequencing were available in 20 and 16 patients, respectively. Duration of systemic treatment (DOT) was categorized as that prior (DOT[P]) and subsequent (DOT[S]) to radiation treatment. The median DOT(P) and DOT(S) were 15.1 and 18.3 mo, respectively, with a median DOT(S)/DOT(P) ratio of 1.4. Patients who had a DOT(S)/DOT(P) ratio of ≥1 had increased expression in pathways related to cell proliferation and development. In contrast, among patients with a ratio of ≤1, the reactive oxygen species pathway was enriched. This study highlights the potential role of genomics and transcriptomics to refine radiation treatment selection in patients with mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we looked at mutations and genomic expressions among kidney cancer patients who responded better to stereotactic body radiotherapy. We found that enriched expression of certain pathways might play a role in response to radiotherapy.

Genomic and Clinical Prognostic Factors in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Recently data suggest that telomerase reverse transcripatase (TERT) promoter mutations portend superior outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in mUC. In our retrospective analysis from 2 tertiary cancer centers, we assessed the predictive role of TERT mutations along with other parameters. METHODS: Patient registries were queried for patients treated with ICI for mUC with available genomic and clinical data. Select clinical and laboratory parameters, in addition to primary tumor site, histology, treatment modality, and setting were recorded. Tumor mutational burden (TMB), and mutational status of TERT, CDKN2A, CDKN2B, TMB, TP53, RB1, KMT2D, ARID1A, ERBB2, KDM6A, PIK3CA, FGFR3, and ATM were noted. Univariate analysis of significance concerning overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was conducted. RESULTS: In total, 113 patients were found to meet inclusion criteria. In our study, ORR was 55%, median PFS was 5.1 months (0.2-71.8), and median OS was 13.4 months (0.2-84.8). On univariate analysis, female sex, NLR>5, and ATM mutation were associated with inferior PFS and OS, whereas upper tract primary disease and ECOG score ≥ 2 were associated with worse OS. On multivariate analysis, NLR >5 was associated with worse PFS and OS whereas upper tract primary disease, albumin <3.4 g/dL, hemoglobin <10 g/dL and ATM mutation were significantly associated with worse OS on multivariate analysis. No significant differences were seen in ORR, PFS, or OS regarding TERT promoter mutations. CONCLUSION: TERT promoter mutations were not significantly associated with any difference in outcome in patients treated with ICI.

Perceptions of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Genitourinary Cancers: A Survey Study.

Since the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines, their safety and efficacy has been widely demonstrated in patients with cancer. However, there remain patients with reservations regarding vaccination. We aimed to assess genitourinary cancer patients' perceptions of the vaccines as well as barriers and influencers of decision-making through the completion of a questionnaire. While vaccine-associated concerns were observed, most patients with genitourinary cancers were willing to receive the vaccine. Moving forward, differing strategies could be considered to enhance patient education on the utility of vaccination in the setting of cancer and beyond.

Temporal Characteristics of Adverse Events of Tivozanib and Sorafenib in Previously Treated Kidney Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Tivozanib, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, met the primary endpoint of improved progression free survival compared to sorafenib in the phase 3 TIVO-3 study in patients with previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In this study we sought to understand the temporal characteristics of treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) and frequency and timing of the dose modifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open label, randomized, phase 3 TIVO-3 study, previously treated patients with a diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and with measurable disease were included. Patients were randomized to receive either tivozanib 1.5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. Based on updated safety analysis data (cutoff date of August 15, 2019), time to onset of the most commonly reported TRAEs, duration of toxicity, rate of dose modifications was calculated for each treatment arm. RESULTS: Overall, 350 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivozanib or sorafenib;173 patients from the tivozanib arm and 170 patients from the sorafenib arm were included in this analysis. Patients received a median of 11.9 cycles (336 days) and 6.7 cycles (192 days) of tivozanib and sorafenib, respectively. Dose reductions, interruptions and treatment discontinuations were 25%, 50%, and 21%, and 39%, 50%, and 30% in the tivozanib and sorafenib arms, respectively, with a longer time to onset of TRAEs in the tivozanib arm. CONCLUSION: Tivozanib was associated with less TRAEs, fewer dose modifications, a longer time to onset and a shorter duration of TRAEs compared to sorafenib.

Front-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Perspective on the Current Algorithm and Future Directions.

Over the last decade, the treatment paradigm of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has rapidly evolved, with notable changes in the front-line setting. Combination therapies involving the use of either doublet therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors or combination VEGFR-directed therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly improved clinical outcomes, including prolonged overall survival and durable response to treatment. We aim to highlight the Food and Drug Administration-approved front-line therapy options, the navigation of treatment selection, and the future directions of metastatic renal cell carcinoma therapies.

Targeted therapies: Expanding the role of FGFR3 inhibition in urothelial carcinoma.

The management of urothelial carcinoma (UC) has rapidly advanced in recent years with new approvals for immune checkpoint inhibitors and antibody-drug conjugates. However, while many UC tumors contain potentially actionable mutations, the role for targeted small molecule inhibitors has been limited. One such target is the fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) family of proteins. Activating mutations and amplifications of FGFR3 are common in UC with higher incidences seen in upper tract as compared to lower tract disease. Consequently, multiple FGFR-directed targeted therapies have been developed and trialed in both UC and other solid tumors harboring FGFR mutations. At current, erdafitinib, an inhibitor of FGFR1-4, is the only approved targeted therapy in metastatic UC following the BLC2001 study, which demonstrated a 49% overall response rate in patients with UC harboring an FGFR3 mutation. Additional FGFR-directed agents also continue to be investigated across multiple disease stages in FGFR-mutated UC including infigratinib, rogaratinib, and AZD4547, among others. Ongoing trials are combining these agents with immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy regimens. The precision medicine revolution has begun in UC, and FGFR3 inhibitors are leading the charge toward a more personalized, biomarker-driven treatment paradigm.

Complementary Role of Circulating Tumor DNA Assessment and Tissue Genomic Profiling in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The role of circulating cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) as an adjunct to tissue genomic profiling is poorly defined in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this study, we aim to validate previous findings related to genomic alteration (GA) frequency in ctDNA and determine the concordance between ctDNA and tissue-based profiling in patients with mRCC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Results of 839 patients with mRCC who had ctDNA assessment with a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified ctDNA assay between November 2016 and December 2019 were collected. Tissue-based genomic profiling was collected when available and concordance analysis between blood- and tissue-based testing was performed. RESULTS: ctDNA was assessed in 839 patients (comprising 920 samples) with mRCC. GAs were detected in 661 samples (71.8%). Tissue-based GAs were assessed in 112 patients. Limiting our analyses to a common 73-/74-gene set and excluding samples with no ctDNA detected, a total of 228 mutations were found in tissue and blood. Mutations identified in tissue (34.7%; 42/121) were also identified via ctDNA, whereas 28.2% (42/149) of the mutations identified in liquid were also identified via tissue. Concordance between ctDNA and tissue-based profiling was inversely related to the time elapsed between these assays. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the feasibility of ctDNA profiling in the largest mRCC cohort to date, with ctDNA identifying multiple actionable alterations. It also demonstrates that ctDNA and tissue-based genomic profiling are complementary, with both platforms identifying unique alterations, and confirms that the frequency of unique alterations increases with greater temporal separation between tests.

Immune Related Adverse Events: Classification and Management Approaches in Advanced Kidney Cancer.

Recent therapeutic advancements have incorporated immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) into the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Pivotal phase III trials have resulted in Food and Drug Administration approval for anti-programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 ICIs, either in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 ICIs or with vascular endothelial growth factor-directed targeted therapies, as standard-of-care frontline regimens. Immune checkpoint inhibitors offer improved clinical outcomes when compared to previous treatment options. However, these agents also present unique toxicity profiles collectively referred to as immune-related adverse events. Common immune-related adverse events include colitis, hepatitis, dermatitis, and thyroiditis. Rare toxicities, such as myocarditis and pneumonitis, have the potential for causing severe harm. Herein, we provide a case-based discussion of how to identify, grade, and manage irAEs in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Tivozanib in renal cell carcinoma: a new approach to previously treated disease.

Targeted therapies have been a mainstay of the renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatment paradigm for the better part of two decades. Multikinase inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases (VEGF-TKIs) comprise nearly all targeted therapies in RCC, having been prospectively tested through large, multi-institutional phase III trials. Tivozanib is a VEGF-TKI with high selectivity for VEGF receptors 1-3. Tivozanib has been under investigation for nearly 15 years, with a robust portfolio of preclinical and clinical data. This review seeks to characterize tivozanib within the context of RCC by highlighting preclinical and early clinical trials alongside the phase III trials in RCC, TIVO-1, and TIVO-3. We also aim to explore further trials of tivozanib, whether in combination with other agents and/or in differing disease settings, while providing insight into the utility of tivozanib as a clinical tool for the management of RCC.