Salvage lenvatinib/everolimus combination therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitor and VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Background: The optimal treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who have progressed after both immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) remains uncertain. Lenvatinib and everolimus (LE) are frequently used in combination as salvage therapy because of their different antitumor mechanisms, but efficacy and toxicity data in this setting are lacking. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed charts from two academic centers for 71 adult mRCC patients who received LE after prior ICI and TKI exposure. We evaluated patient demographics, histology, International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, treatment history, and toxicity details. Outcomes of interest included objective response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), ≥grade 3 toxicities, and schedule or dosage changes, which were evaluated using descriptive statistics, chi-square test, Cox proportional hazards model, and the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median age was 64 (range 31-84). Most patients had clear cell histology (84.5%) and had undergone nephrectomy (80.3%). IMDC risks were favorable (19.7%), intermediate (int) (66.2%), poor (11.3%), and unknown (2.8%). The average ORR was 26.8%, while the median TTF was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-7.6) and the median OS was 9 months (95% CI, 7.6-12.9). Intermediate and poor IMDC risks were independently associated with a significantly worse TTF compared to favorable risk (hazard ratio (HR), 3.03, 95% CI, 1.18-7.79), as was ≥4L treatment vs. 2L/3L treatment (HR, 2.02, 95% CI, 1.08-3.8). Of the 71 patients, 57.7% had ≥grade 3 adverse events, 60% had treatment interruption, 44.3% had dose reduction, and 21% stopped treatment due to intolerance. Conclusions: LE therapy is feasible but has modest efficacies following ICI/TKI treatment. Patients with favorable risk or treated earlier may have a better treatment response. These observations need to be confirmed in prospective studies.

A multicenter study assessing survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy with and without cytoreductive nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was called into question following the publication of the CARMENA trial. While previous retrospective studies have supported CN alongside targeted therapies, there is minimal research establishing its role in conjunction with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between CN and oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC treated with immunotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with mRCC between 2000 and 2020 who were treated at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and The Ohio State University and who were treated with ICI systemic therapy (ST) at any point in their disease course. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan Meier analyses. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models evaluated associations with mortality. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 367 patients (CN+ST n = 232, ST alone n = 135). Among patients undergoing CN, 30 were deferred. Median survivor follow-up was 28.4 months. ICI therapy was first-line in 28.1%, second-line in 17.4%, and third or subsequent line (3L+) in 54.5% of patients. Overall, patients who underwent CN+ST had longer median OS (56.3 months IQR 50.2-79.8) compared to the ST alone group (19.1 months IQR 12.8-23.8). Multivariable analyses demonstrated a 67% reduction in risk of all-cause mortality in patients who received CN+ST vs. ST alone (P < 0.0001). Similar results were noted when first-line ICI therapy recipients were examined as a subgroup. Upfront and deferred CN did not demonstrate significant differences in OS. CONCLUSIONS: CN was independently associated with longer OS in patients with mRCC treated with ICI in any line of therapy. Our data support consideration of CN in well selected patients with mRCC undergoing treatment with ICI.

Combining immune checkpoint inhibition plus tyrosine kinase inhibition as first and subsequent treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ICI/TKI) combinations are a new standard of care for the initial treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Their efficacy and toxicity beyond the first-line setting remain poorly defined. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts for 85 adults with mRCC of any histology receiving combination of ICI/TKI in any line of treatment at two academic centers as of 05/01/2020. We collected clinical, pathological, and treatment-related variables. Outcomes including objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity were analyzed via descriptive statistics and the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Patients received pembrolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab, or nivolumab-ipilimumab, with concurrent use of sunitinib, axitinib, pazopanib, lenvatinib, or cabozantinib. Thirty-three patients received first-line ICI/TKI therapy, while 52 received ≥ second-line ICI/TKI. The efficacy of ICI/TKI therapy decreased with increasing lines of treatment (ORR: 56.7%, 37.5%, 21.4%, and 21%; median PFS [mPFS]: 15.2, 14.2, 10.1, and 6.8 months, for first, second, third, and ≥ fourth line therapy, respectively). In the ≥ second-line setting, ICI/TKI was most useful in patients who received ICI only, with an ORR of 50% and a mPFS of 9.1 months. Efficacy was limited in patients who received both TKI and ICI previously, with an ORR of 20% and a mPFS of 5.5 months. Overall, ≥ second-line ICI/TKI was tolerable with 25 of 52 (52%) patients developing grade ≥3 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: ICI/TKI combination therapy is feasible and safe beyond the first-line setting. Prior treatment history appears to impact efficacy but has a lesser effect on safety/tolerability.

Salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy is frequently used off-label for clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, limited data are available to guide such therapy. We performed a meta-analysis to characterize further the safety and efficacy of salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA. Studies of salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with mRCC published in English before June 1, 2021 were included. We also included patients treated at the Ohio State University from 2012 to 2020 through a retrospective chart review. The included studies were further stratified into adaptive and standard groups based on their designs. We calculated objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs) via pooled data and quantitative synthesis using the Stata metaprop procedure. A conservative random effect model was used to combine values. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies and 310 patients were included. Salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab had an ORR of 14% (95% CI, 0.09-0.21) and median progression-free survival ranged between 3.7 and 5.5 months. Four out of the seven studies were standard design, whereas the other three studies were adaptive. The ORR was numerically higher in the standard group compared with the adaptive group (21% and 9-10%, respectively). The responses to salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab did not correlate with the initial anti-PD-1/PD-L1 responses (odds ratio = 1.45; p = 0.5). Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 26% of the patients (95% CI, 0.19-0.33). There were no new safety signals observed in this study. CONCLUSION: Salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab demonstrated moderate antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with mRCC who had prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma have limited treatment options after progressive disease on anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. The role of salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab in this patient population is poorly defined. The studies on this highly important and clinically relevant topic are limited by small sample sizes. The results from our meta-analysis suggest that nivolumab and ipilimumab are feasible in the salvage setting with moderate efficacy and acceptable toxicity profile. The response rates differ with different treatment designs. This information will be beneficial to guide clinical decision-making and accurately estimating toxicity.

Outcomes for Cancer Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The incidence of cardiovascular disease in cancer patients is rising. The risk of in-hospital complications for cancer patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is not well defined. METHODS/MATERIALS: A retrospective single-center cohort assessing STEMI patients with a history of cancer (n = 58) and without a history of cancer (n = 551) who underwent primary PCI between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2017 was conducted. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital complications including reinfarction, cardiogenic shock, new heart failure, stroke, new atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, cardiac arrest, bleeding, new dialysis requirement, mechanical circulatory support, hospice requirement, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall in-hospital complications occurred in 229 (37.6%) patients. There was no significant difference in overall complications in patients with a history of cancer (39.7%), compared to those without a cancer history (37.4%) (adjusted OR 0.84 [0.46-1.51], p = 0.58; unadjusted OR 1.10 [0.61-1.92], p = 0.73); there were no differences exhibited in any of the individual complications. Patients with a history of cancer were significantly more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (12.7% vs. 5%; p = 0.03) and receive bare metal stents (50% vs. 30.4%; p = 0.004) as compared to patients without a history of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference for in-hospital complications in patients with a history of cancer and those without a history of cancer undergoing primary PCI for STEMI. Patients with a history of cancer were more likely to readmitted within 30 days and receive bare metal stents. SUMMARY: The risk of in-hospital complications for cancer patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI is not well defined. In a single-center retrospective cohort, there was no significant difference for in-hospital complications between patients with a history of cancer and those without a history of cancer undergoing primary PCI for STEMI.