Advanced renal cell carcinoma management: the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) consensus update.

PURPOSE: Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil. METHODS: A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence. RESULTS: Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors combinations as first-line systemic treatment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) with platinum-based chemotherapy (PlatinumCT) or with another ICI in the first-line setting for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) have mixed results. METHODS: Records were searched electronically from January 2019 to January 2024. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Immune-based combinations were associated with an OS (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.92; p < 0.001; I2= 84.1%) and PFS benefit in the intention-to-treat population (HR: 0.67; 95%CI: 0.51-0.89; p < 0.001; I2 = 89.7%). There was no ORR improvement with immune-based combinations (HR: 1.36; 95% CI:0.84-2.20; p < 0.001; I2 = 92.6%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and study-level meta-analysis demonstrated that the immune-based combinations in first-line treatment for patients with mUC are associated with survival benefit.

Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index in Patients Treated With First-Line Immune Combinations for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Insights From the ARON-1 Study.

BACKGROUND: Systemic treatment with immune combinations is the gold standard for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) worldwide. The systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) is a prognostic marker for several types of malignant neoplasms, including mRCC, in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. Data regarding the prognostic value of the SII in patients with mRCC treated with immunotherapy are scarce and controversial.  METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data of patients with mRCC from 56 centers in 18 countries. SII (Platelet × Neutrophil/Lymphocyte count) was calculated prior to the first systemic treatment and cut-off was defined by a survival receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The primary objective of our retrospective study was to assess the outcomes of patients treated with first-line immunotherapy.  RESULTS: Data from 1034 mRCC patients was collected and included in this analysis. The SII cut-off value was 1265. After a follow-up of 26.7 months, and the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 39.8 and 15.7 months, respectively. According to SII (low vs. high), patients with low-SII had longer OS (55.7 vs. 22.2 months, P < .001), better PFS (20.8 vs. 8.5 months, P < .001), and higher overall response rate (52 vs. 37%, P = .033). CONCLUSION: A high SII is associated with poor oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC. SII could be an easily accessible prognostic indicator for use in clinical practice.

Use of concomitant proton pump inhibitors, statins or metformin in patients treated with pembrolizumab for metastatic urothelial carcinoma: data from the ARON-2 retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant medications may potentially affect the outcome of cancer patients. In this sub-analysis of the ARON-2 real-world study (NCT05290038), we aimed to assess the impact of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), statins, or metformin on outcome of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) receiving second-line pembrolizumab. METHODS: We collected data from the hospital medical records of patients with mUC treated with pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at 87 institutions from 22 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate. We carried out a survival analysis by a Cox regression model. RESULTS: A total of 802 patients were eligible for this retrospective study; the median follow-up time was 15.3 months. PPI users compared to non-users showed inferior PFS (4.5 vs. 7.2 months, p = 0.002) and OS (8.7 vs. 14.1 months, p < 0.001). Concomitant PPI use remained a significant predictor of PFS and OS after multivariate Cox analysis. The use of statins or metformin was not associated with response or survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results suggest a significant prognostic impact of concomitant PPI use in mUC patients receiving pembrolizumab in the real-world context. The mechanism of this interaction warrants further elucidation.

The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as adjuvant treatment in renal cell carcinoma (RCC): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 ICI is approved for the adjuvant treatment of postnephrectomy patients with clear cell RCC in some countries worldwide. However, recent negative data from randomized clinical trials (RCT) with another ICIs makes the benefit of this treatment uncertain. A systematic review and study-level meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the benefit of disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant ICI treatment for patients with localized and/or metastatic resected RCC. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, a systematic search was performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE, Scopus and EMBASE up to September 15, 2022. The statistical analysis was performed by ProMeta 3 software in intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in predetermined subgroups. Four RCT totalizing 3407 patients were included in this analysis. Systemic immunotherapy was pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab in 496, 390, 404, and 405 patients, respectively. In the ITT population there was a nonstatistically significant DFS benefit with adjuvant ICI (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.69-1.04). Regarding the subgroups, there was a DFS benefit for PD-L1 positive (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55-0.94), intermediate-high risk patients (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63-0.94), and patients with sarcomatoid component (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). This meta-analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant DFS benefit in overall population, however considering the heterogeneity between the RCTs the use of adjuvant ICI should be individualized.

Complete remissions following immunotherapy or immuno-oncology combinations in cancer patients: the MOUSEION-03 meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has determined unprecedented long-term responses in several hematological and solid tumors. In the MOUSEION-03 study, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the possibility of achieving complete remissions (CR) with immunotherapy or immuno-oncology combinations in cancer patients. METHODS: The primary endpoint was to assess the incidence of CR in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone or in combination with other agents versus control treatments. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for CR rate were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 12,130 potentially relevant trials were identified; 5 phase II and 80 phase III randomized studies (37 monotherapies and 48 combinations) and 49,425 cancer patients were included. The most frequent types of malignancies were non-small cell lung cancer (n = 14,249; 29%), urothelial cancer (n = 6536; 13%), renal cell carcinoma (n = 5743; 12%), and melanoma (n = 2904; 6%). In patients treated with immunotherapy (as monotherapy or in combination with other anticancer agents), the pooled OR was 1.67 (1.52-1.84). The highest OR was registered by immune-based combinations with two ICIs (3.56, 95% CI 1.28-9.90). CONCLUSIONS: To the best of the authors' knowledge, no comprehensive meta-analysis on the use of ICIs and ICI-based combinations in solid tumors to systematically investigate the probability to achieve CR has been published so far. Although CR is not a common event in several cancer patients receiving immunotherapy, the MOUSEION-03 suggests that the use of ICIs may significantly increase the chance of achieving CR in comparison with control treatments.

Adjuvant PD-1 and PD-L1 Inhibitors and Relapse-Free Survival in Cancer Patients: The MOUSEION-04 Study.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant treatment has always been a cornerstone in the therapeutic approach of many cancers, considering its role in reducing the risk of relapse and, in some cases, increasing overall survival. Adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors have been tested in different malignancies. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis aimed to explore the impact of adjuvant PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors on relapse-free survival (RFS) in cancer patients enrolled in randomized controlled clinical trials. We retrieved all phase III trials published from 15 June 2008 to 15 May 2022, evaluating PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors monotherapy as an adjuvant treatment by searching on EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed/ Medline, and international oncological meetings' abstracts. The outcome of interest was RFS. We also performed subgroup analyses focused on age and gender. RESULTS: Overall, 8 studies, involving more than 6000 patients, were included in the analysis. The pooled results highlighted that the use of adjuvant PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors may reduce the risk of relapse compared to control treatments (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence intervals, 0.67-0.78). In addition, the subgroup analyses observed that this benefit was consistent in different patient populations, including male, female, younger, and older patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment is associated with an increased RFS in the overall population and in subgroups divided according to age and gender.

Consensus on diagnosis and management of non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer in Brazil: focus on patient, selection, treatment efficacy, side effects and physician's perception according to patient comorbidities

ABSTRACT Background: Non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC) has seen important developments in drugs and diagnostic tools in the last two years. New hormonal agents have demonstrated improvement in metastasis free survival in M0 CRPC patients and have been approved by regulatory agencies in Brazil. Additionally, newer and more sensitive imaging tools are able to detect metastasis earlier than before, which will impact the percentage of patients staged as M0 CRPC. Based on the available international guidelines, a group of Brazilian urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on the diagnosis and treatment of M0 CRPC in Brazil. These results are reviewed and summarized and associated recommendations are provided. Objective: To present survey results on management of M0 CRPC in Brazil. Design, setting, and participants: A panel of six Brazilian prostate cancer experts determined 64 questions concerning the main areas of interest: 1) staging tools, 2) treatments, 3) side effects of systemic treatment/s, and 4) osteoclast-targeted therapy. A larger panel of 28 Brazilian prostate cancer experts answered these questions in order to create country-specific recommendations discussed in this manuscript. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. These answers are the panelists' opinions, not a literature review or meta-analysis. Therapies not yet approved in Brazil were excluded from answer options. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two non-answers. Results were tabulated in real time. Conclusions: The results and recommendations presented can be used by Brazilian physicians to support the management of M0 CRPC patients. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data, however, for Brazil, guidelines for diagnosis and management of M0 CRPC patients have not been developed. This document will serve as a point of reference when confronting this disease stage.

Consensus on diagnosis and management of non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer in Brazil: focus on patient, selection, treatment efficacy, side effects and physician's perception according to patient comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC) has seen important developments in drugs and diagnostic tools in the last two years. New hormonal agents have demonstrated improvement in metastasis free survival in M0 CRPC patients and have been approved by regulatory agencies in Brazil. Additionally, newer and more sensitive imaging tools are able to detect metastasis earlier than before, which will impact the percentage of patients staged as M0 CRPC. Based on the available international guidelines, a group of Brazilian urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on the diagnosis and treatment of M0 CRPC in Brazil. These results are reviewed and summarized and associated recommendations are provided. OBJECTIVE: To present survey results on management of M0 CRPC in Brazil. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A panel of six Brazilian prostate cancer experts determined 64 questions concerning the main areas of interest: 1) staging tools, 2) treatments, 3) side effects of systemic treatment/s, and 4) osteoclast-targeted therapy. A larger panel of 28 Brazilian prostate cancer experts answered these questions in order to create country-specific recommendations discussed in this manuscript. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. These answers are the panelists' opinions, not a literature review or meta-analysis. Therapies not yet approved in Brazil were excluded from answer options. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two non-answers. Results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSIONS: The results and recommendations presented can be used by Brazilian physicians to support the management of M0 CRPC patients. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data, however, for Brazil, guidelines for diagnosis and management of M0 CRPC patients have not been developed. This document will serve as a point of reference when confronting this disease stage.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) management: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG).

PURPOSE: The outcome of RCC has improved considerably in the last few years, and the treatment options have increased. LACOG-GU and LARCG held a consensus meeting to develop guidelines to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of RCC patients. METHODS: Eighty questions addressing relevant advanced RCC treatments were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. Consensus was determined as 75% agreement. For questions with less than 75% agreement, a new discussion was held, and consensus was determined by the majority of votes after the second voting session. RESULTS: The recommendations were based on the highest level of scientific evidence or by the opinion of the RCC experts when no relevant research data were available. CONCLUSION: This manuscript provides guidance for advanced RCC treatment according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG expert recommendations.

Renal cell cancer treatment: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American cooperative group-genitourinary and the Latin American renal cancer group: focus on surgery.

BACKGROUND: Renal cell cancer (RCC) is one of the 10 most common cancers in the world, and its incidence is increasing, whereas mortality is declining only in developed countries. Therefore, two collaborative groups, The Latin American Oncology Cooperative Group-Genitourinary Section (LACOG-GU) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG), held a consensus meeting to develop this guideline. METHODS: Issues (134) related to the treatment of RCC were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists (urologists and medical oncologists) from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. A consensus was reached if 75% agreement was achieved. If there was less concordance, a new discussion was undertaken, and a consensus was determined by the most votes after a second voting session. RESULTS: The expert meeting provided recommendations that were in line with the global literature; 75.0% of the recommendations made by the panel of experts were evidence-based level A, 22.5% of the recommendations were level B, and 2.5% of the recommendations were level D. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests recommendations for the surgical treatment of RCC according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG experts.