177Lu-PSMA-617 in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Evidence and Implications for Canadian Clinical Practice.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is highly expressed in prostate cancer and a therapeutic target. Lutetium-177 (177Lu)-PSMA-617 is the first radioligand therapy to be approved in Canada for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). As this treatment represents a new therapeutic class, guidance regarding how to integrate it into clinical practice is needed. This article aims to review the evidence from prospective phase 2 and 3 clinical trials and meta-analyses of observational studies on the use of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in prostate cancer and discuss how Canadian clinicians might best apply these data in practice. The selection of appropriate patients, the practicalities of treatment administration, including necessary facilities for treatment procedures, the assessment of treatment response, and the management of adverse events are considered. Survival benefits were observed in clinical trials of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with progressive, PSMA-positive mCRPC who were pretreated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and taxanes, as well as in taxane-naïve patients. However, the results of ongoing trials are awaited to clarify questions regarding the optimal sequencing of 177Lu-PSMA-617 with other therapies, as well as the implications of predictive biomarkers, personalized dosimetry, and combinations with other therapies.

The Use of Salvage Chemotherapy for Patients with Relapsed Testicular Germ Cell Tumor (GCT) in Canada: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Although metastatic germ cell tumor (GCT) is highly curable with initial cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT), 20-30% of patients relapse. Salvage CT options include conventional (CDCT) and high dose chemotherapy (HDCT), however definitive comparative data remain lacking. We aimed to characterize the contemporary practice patterns of salvage CT across Canada. METHODS: We conducted a 30-question online survey for Canadian medical and hematological oncologists with experience in treating GCT, assessing treatment availability, patient selection, and management strategies used for relapsed GCT patients. RESULTS: There were 30 respondents from 18 cancer centers across eight provinces. The most common CDCT regimens used were TIP (64%) and VIP (25%). HDCT was available in 13 centers (70%). The HDCT regimen used included carboplatin and etoposide for two cycles (76% in 7 centers), three cycles (6% in 2 centers), and the TICE protocol (11%, in 2 centers). "Bridging" CDCT was used by 65% of respondents. Post-HDCT treatments considered include surgical resection for residual disease (87.5%), maintenance etoposide (6.3%), and surveillance only (6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: HDCT is the most commonly used GCT salvage strategy in Canada. Significant differences exist in the treatment availability, selection, and delivery of HDCT, highlighting the need for standardization of care for patients with relapsed testicular GCT.

Comprehensive immune profiling of patients with advanced urothelial or renal cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are used in the treatment of urothelial and renal cell cancers. While some patients may have exceptional responses, better predictive biomarkers are needed. We profiled the circulating immune compartment of patients receiving ICI to identify possible immune markers associated with immunotherapy response or resistance. Peripheral blood samples were collected prior to, and 3 weeks after initiation of ICI. Using mass cytometry, 26 distinct immune populations were identified. Responders to immune checkpoint inhibitors had higher frequencies of naïve CD4+ T-cells, and lower frequencies of CD161+ Th17 cells and CCR4+ Th2 cells. Non-responders had a higher frequency of circulating PD1+ T-cells at baseline; there was a subsequent decrease in frequency with exposure to ICI with a concomitant increase in Ki67 expression. Flow cytometry for cytokines and chemokine receptors showed that CD4+ T cells of non-responder patients expressed less CXCR4 and CCR7. In addition, their PD1- CD4+ T cells had higher TNFα and higher CCR4 expression, while their PD1+ CD4+ T cells had higher interferon γ and lower CCR4 expression. The role of γ/δ T-cells was also explored. In responders, these cells had higher levels of interferon γ, TNFα and CCR5. One patient with a complete response had markedly higher frequency of γ/δ T-cells at baseline, and an expansion of these cells after treatment. This case was analyzed using single-cell gene expression profiling. The bulk of the γ/δ T cells consisted of a single clone of Vγ9/Vδ2 cells both before and after expansion, although the expansion was polyclonal. Gene expression analysis showed that exposure to an ICI led to a more activated phenotype of the γ/δ T cells. In this study, the circulating immune compartment was shown to have potential for biomarker discovery. Its dynamic changes during treatment may be used to assess response before radiographic changes are apparent, and these changes may help us delineate mechanisms that underpin both response and resistance to ICI. It also hypothesizes a potential role for γ/δ T cells as effector cells in some cases.

TP53 Alterations Are Associated With Poor Survival in Patients With Primary Mediastinal Nonseminoma Germ Cell Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Primary mediastinal nonseminoma germ cell tumors (PMNSGCT) are a subgroup of nonseminoma germ cell tumors (GCT) with poor prognosis. In this study, PMNSGCT-specific genomic landscape was analyzed and correlated with clinical outcomes. METHODS: DNA was extracted and sequenced from 28 archival tumor tissue of patients with mediastinal GCT (3 seminoma and 25 nonseminoma). Overall survival (OS) and association with gene alterations were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier and univariate Cox regression methods. RESULTS: Three patients (11%) had a karyotype XXY, 17/28 (61%) tumor samples presented chromosome 12p amplification. Somatic mutations were detected in 19/28 (68%) samples. The most frequently mutated genes were: TP53 (13/28; 46%), KIT (5/28; 18%), and KRAS (5/28; 18%). Deleterious TP53 alterations were associated with significantly reduced overall survival (HR: 7.16; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: TP53 alterations are common in PMNSGCT and are associated with reduced overall survival, potentially underlying the poor sensitivity to chemotherapy observed in these patients.

Outcomes of patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have demonstrated impressive activity in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and have become standard treatment options for patients with advanced disease. Data supporting the effectiveness of ICI-based therapy in advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) is more limited. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) to evaluate the outcomes of patients with advanced nccRCC. Patients were classified into three groups based on first-line therapy: ICI-based therapy (monotherapy or combination), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor monotherapy, or mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor monotherapy. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were time to treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR). We used the Kaplan-Meier method to compare OS and TTF between treatment groups and Cox proportional hazards models to adjust for prognostic covariates. RESULTS: We identified a total of 1145 patients with metastatic nccRCC. The most common subtype was papillary RCC (54.9%). For first-line therapy, 74.3% received VEGF monotherapy, 15% received mTOR monotherapy, and 10.7% received ICI-based therapy. Median OS in the ICI group was 28.6 months, versus 16.4 months in the VEGF group and 12.2 months in the mTOR group. Median TTF in the ICI group was 6.9 months, versus 5.0 months in the VEGF group and 3.9 months in the mTOR group. ORR was 27.2% in the ICI group, 14.5% in the VEGF group, and 9% in the mTOR group. After adjusting for the IMDC risk group, histological subtype, and age, the hazard ratio for OS was 0.57 (95% CI 0.42-0.78, p < 0.0001) for ICI versus VEGF and 0.50 (95% CI 0.36-0.71, p < 0.0001) for ICI versus mTOR. CONCLUSIONS: In advanced nccRCC, first-line ICI-based treatment appears to be associated with improved OS compared to VEGF and mTOR targeted therapy. These results should be confirmed in prospective randomised trials.

Whole-genome and transcriptome analysis of advanced adrenocortical cancer highlights multiple alterations affecting epigenome and DNA repair pathways.

Adrenocortical cancer (ACC) is a rare cancer of the adrenal gland. Several driver mutations have been identified in both primary and metastatic ACCs, but the therapeutic options are still limited. We performed whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing on seven patients with metastatic ACC. Integrative analysis of mutations, RNA expression changes, mutation signature, and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) analysis was performed. Mutations affecting CTNNB1 and TP53 and frequent loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events were observed in our cohort. Alterations affecting genes involved in cell cycle (RB1, CDKN2A, CDKN2B), DNA repair pathways (MUTYH, BRCA2, ATM, RAD52, MLH1, MSH6), and telomere maintenance (TERF2 and TERT) consisting of somatic and germline mutations, structural variants, and expression outliers were also observed. HRDetect, which aggregates six HRD-associated mutation signatures, identified a subset of cases as HRD. Genomic alterations affecting genes involved in epigenetic regulation were also identified, including structural variants (SWI/SNF genes and histone methyltransferases), and copy gains and concurrent high expression of KDM5A, which may contribute to epigenomic deregulation. Findings from this study highlight HRD and epigenomic pathways as potential therapeutic targets and suggest a subgroup of patients may benefit from a diverse array of molecularly targeted therapies in ACC, a rare disease in urgent need of therapeutic strategies.

Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

Utilization and Safety of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab in a Real-World Cohort of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab was associated with a survival benefit in a phase III clinical trial of first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this study, mRCC patients from the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database who received first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab were analyzed to determine the safety and outcomes in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who received ipilimumab plus nivolumab as first-line therapy for mRCC in CKCis, were identified, and the amount of treatment received, discontinuation rates, and reasons for discontinuing treatment were determined. Toxicity data, including type and grade, were collected. Efficacy outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: The cohort included 195 patients, the majority with clear cell histology (74%). All 4 cycles of ipilimumab plus nivolumab were administered in 124 patients (64%). Progressive disease (n = 87; 45%) and toxicity (n = 36; 18%) were the most common causes for discontinuing treatment. Several patients (n = 18) did not receive all 4 doses of ipilimumab but received single agent nivolumab. The estimated median OS was 54.5 months (95% CI, 17.7 - NE) and 12-month OS was 72.2% (95% CI, 65.0 - 79.3). Median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI 5.3 - 10.2) and ORR was 42.5%. Patients who received all 4 cycles of ipilimumab plus nivolumab had better ORR (50% vs. 28%) and a longer PFS and OS than those who received less than 4 cycles (P < .0001). Ninety-five AEs were documented in 72 patients who required dose reduction/change, with colitis being the most frequent. CONCLUSION: In this real-world cohort of treatment-naïve mRCC patients, outcomes, and safety were comparable to previously reported clinical trial data.

First-line Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab Versus Sunitinib in Patients Without Nephrectomy and With an Evaluable Primary Renal Tumor in the CheckMate 214 Trial.

We present an exploratory post hoc analysis from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in a subgroup of 108 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, a population under-represented in clinical trials. Patients with clear cell aRCC were randomized to NIVO+IPI every 3 wk for four doses followed by NIVO monotherapy, or sunitinib every day for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and primary tumor shrinkage were assessed. PFS and ORR were assessed per independent radiology review committee using RECIST version 1.1. With minimum study follow-up of 4 yr for intent-to-treat patients, OS favored NIVO+IPI (n = 53) over sunitinib (n = 55; hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.0) among patients without prior nephrectomy. ORR was higher (34% vs 15%; p = 0.0041) and median duration of response was longer with NIVO+IPI versus sunitinib (20.5 vs 14.1 mo); the best overall response was partial response in either arm. A ≥30% reduction in the diameter of intact target renal tumors was achieved in 35% of patients with NIVO+IPI versus 20% with sunitinib. Safety was consistent with the global study population. In conclusion, in patients with aRCC without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, NIVO+IPI showed survival benefits and renal tumor reduction versus sunitinib. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02231749. PATIENT SUMMARY: In an exploratory analysis of a large global trial (CheckMate 214), we observed positive outcomes (both survival and tumor response to treatment) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in a subgroup of patients with advanced kidney cancer who did not undergo removal of their primary kidney tumor. This subset of patients represents a population that has not been studied in clinical trials and for whom outcomes with new immunotherapy combination regimens are not yet known. We conclude that treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab offers these patients a survival benefit versus sunitinib, consistent with that observed in the overall study, as well as a notable kidney tumor reduction.

Tissue based biomarkers in non-clear cell RCC: Correlative analysis from the ASPEN clinical trial.

Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC), particularly papillary renal cell carcinoma, in order to inform on initial treatment selection and identify potentially novel targets for therapy. We enrolled 108 patients in ASPEN, an international randomized open-label phase 2 trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC treated with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (n=57) or the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibitor sunitinib (n=51), stratified by MSKCC risk and histology. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary efficacy endpoints for this exploratory biomarker analysis were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) defined by intention-to-treat using the RECIST 1.1 criteria and radiographic response rates. Tissue biomarkers (n=78) of mTOR pathway activation (phospho-S6 and -Akt, c-kit) and VEGF pathway activation (HIF-1α, c-MET) were prospectively explored in tumor tissue by immunohistochemistry prior to treatment and associated with clinical outcomes. We found that S6 activation was more common in poor risk NC-RCC tumors and S6/Akt activation was associated with worse PFS and OS outcomes with both everolimus and sunitinib, while c-kit was commonly expressed in chromophobe tumors and associated with improved outcomes with both agents. C-MET was commonly expressed in papillary tumors and was associated with lower rates of radiographic response but did not predict PFS for either agent. In multivariable analysis, both pAkt and c-kit were statistically significant prognostic biomarkers of OS. No predictive biomarkers of treatment response were identified for clinical outcomes. Most biomarker subgroups had improved outcomes with sunitinib as compared to everolimus.

Active Surveillance in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is a commonly used strategy in patients with slow-growing disease. We aimed to assess the outcomes and safety of AS in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) to identify patients with mRCC diagnosed between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. The AS strategy was defined as (1) the start of systemic therapy ≥ 6 months after diagnosis of mRCC, or (2) never receiving systemic therapy for mRCC with an overall survival (OS) of ≥1 year. Patients starting systemic treatment <6 months after diagnosis of mRCC were defined as receiving immediate systemic treatment. OS and time until first-line treatment failure (TTF) were compared between the two cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 853 patients met the criteria for AS (cohort A). Of these, 364 started treatment >6 months after their initial diagnosis (cohort A1) and 489 never started systemic therapy (cohort A2); 827 patients received immediate systemic treatment (cohort B). The 5-year OS probability was significantly greater for cohort A than for cohort B (70% vs. 33.6%; P < .0001). After adjusting for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk criteria and age, both OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.70; P < .0001) and TTF (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85; P = .0002) were greater in cohort A1 compared with B. For cohort A1, the median time on AS was 14.2 months (range, 6-71). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the largest analysis of AS in mRCC to date, our data suggest that a subset of patients may be safely observed without immediate initiation of systemic therapy.

Effectiveness of first-line abiraterone versus enzalutamide among patients ≥80 years of age with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A retrospective propensity score-weighted comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) disproportionately affects the elderly. There is limited data assessing the efficacy and tolerability of abiraterone acetate (AA) versus enzalutamide in this population. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of AA versus enzalutamide in patients ≥ 80 years with mCRPC. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective propensity-weighted comparative cohort study of first-line AA versus enzalutamide among patients with mCRPC aged ≥80 years. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Inverse probability treatment weights based on propensity scores were generated to assess the treatment effect of AA versus enzalutamide on time to PSA progression (TTPP), time to progression (TTP) (first of PSA/radiographic/clinical progression) and overall survival using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model. PSA response rate (PSA RR) was compared between groups using Χ2. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: One hundred fifty-three patients received AA, and 125 received enzalutamide. Enzalutamide was associated with higher PSA RR (61.6% vs 43.8%, P < 0.004), and TTP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.88, P = 0.01) but not TTPP (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-1.01, P = 0.06). There were significantly more dose reductions with enzalutamide (22.9% vs 44.8%, P > 0.001) but there was no interaction between median proportion of full dose received and TTPP or TTP for either drug. Rates of treatment discontinuation (for reasons other than progression) were also significantly different between AA and enzalutamide (28.8% vs 40.8%, respectively, P = 0.04). The most common reason for dose reductions and discontinuation of enzalutamide was fatigue (30.4% and 5.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite more dose reductions and a higher treatment discontinuation rate, enzalutamide was associated with a higher PSA RR and longer time to progression, than AA. Given that clinical outcomes were not adversely impacted by decreased treatment exposure, dose modification may be a useful treatment strategy to balance toxicity and tolerance.

Clinical Effectiveness of Second-line Sunitinib Following Immuno-oncology Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-world Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the clinical effectiveness of second-line (2L) vascular endothelial growth factor (receptor) targeted inhibitor (VEGF(R)i) sunitinib after first-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in real-world settings. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study among adult patients with mRCC treated with 2L sunitinib following 1L IO was conducted from select International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) centers. All analyses were performed overall and by 1L ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) or 1L IO+VEGF(R)i. Median overall survival (mOS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) in 2L were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The 2L objective response rate (ORR) (complete/partial response) was reported. RESULTS: Among 102 patients on 2L sunitinib, mean age was 61.3 years. IMDC risk scores at 2L initiation was available for 83 patients: 8 (9.6%) were favorable, 45 (54.2%) were intermediate, and 30 (36.1%) were poor risk. The 1L consisted of IPI+NIVO in 62 (60.8%), IO+VEGF(R)i therapy in 27 (26.5%), and IO monotherapy in 13 (12.7%) patients. Among all patients, mOS was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8-21.7), with a 1-year OS rate of 57.5% (95% CI, 45.2-68.0). mTTD was 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.2-7.2) and ORR was 22.5%. CONCLUSION: Despite availability of effective 1L therapies in recent years, 2L sunitinib continues to have clinical activity after failure of 1L IO. Further studies on optimal treatment sequencing after 1L IO progression are needed.

Efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the treatment of older adults with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) - an International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Older adults with metastatic renal cell carcinoma(mRCC) are underrepresented in immune-checkpoint inhibitor(ICI) registration trials. Here we compare the efficacy of ICI treatments in older vs. younger adults with mRCC. METHODS: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium(IMDC), patients treated with a PD(L)-1 based ICI were identified. Older adult was defined as ≥70-years at the time of treatment. Descriptive statistics were summarized in means, medians, and proportions. Effectiveness endpoints included overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure(TTF), time-to-next treatment(TNT), and overall response rate(ORR). Hazards ratios were adjusted(aHR) for IMDC risk factors, histology, line of treatment and older age. RESULTS: Of 1427 included patients, 397(28%) were older adults. ICI was used as 1st line(1 L) in 40%, 2nd line(2 L) in 49% and 3rd line(3 L) in 11% of patients. In univariable analysis, older adults had inferior OS compared to younger adults(25.1 m vs. 30.8 m, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in TTF (6.9 m vs. 6.9 m, p = 0.4) or TNT(9.1 m vs 10 m, p = 0.3) between groups. In multivariable analyses, older age was not independently associated with worse OS(aHR = 1.02, p = 0.8), TTF(aHR = 0.95, p = 0.6) or TNT(aHR = 0.93, p = 0.5). Older adults had a lower ORR compared to younger adults(24% vs. 31%, p = 0.01), which was mainly driven by responses in 1 L(31% vs. 44%, p = 0.02) and not observed in 2 L/3 L. CONCLUSIONS: After multivariable analyses, older adults with mRCC treated with ICI had no difference in OS, TTF or TNT when compared to younger adults. Our data support that chronological older age should not preclude patients from receiving ICI based therapies.

Angiokines Associated with Targeted Therapy Outcomes in Patients with Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC) to inform treatment selection but also to identify novel therapeutic targets. We thus sought to profile circulating angiokines in the context of a randomized treatment trial of everolimus versus sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ASPEN (NCT01108445) was an international, randomized, open-label phase II trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomized to everolimus or sunitinib and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) defined by RECIST 1.1. Plasma angiokines were collected at baseline, cycle 3, and progression and associated with PFS and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: We enrolled 108 patients, 51 received sunitinib and 57 everolimus; of these, 99 patients had evaluable plasma for 23 angiokines. At the final data cutoff, 94 PFS and 64 mortality events had occurred. Angiokines that were independently adversely prognostic for OS were osteopontin (OPN), TIMP-1, thrombospondin-2 (TSP-2), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and VCAM-1, and these were also associated with poor-risk disease. Stromal derived factor 1 (SDF-1) was associated with improved survival. OPN was also significantly associated with worse PFS. No statistically significant angiokine-treatment outcome interactions were observed for sunitinib or everolimus. Angiopoeitin-2 (Ang-2), CD-73, HER-3, HGF, IL6, OPN, PIGF, PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, SDF-1, TGF-b1-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VCAM-1, VEGF, and VEGF-R1 levels increased with progression on everolimus, while CD-73, ICAM-1, IL6, OPN, PlGF, SDF-1, TGF-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VEGF, VEGF-D, and VCAM-1 increased with progression on sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic NC-RCC, we identified several poor prognosis angiokines and immunomodulatory chemokines during treatment with sunitinib or everolimus, particularly OPN.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.

PURPOSE: To report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). METHODS: Patients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory). RESULTS: Overall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. CONCLUSION: After long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up. METHODS: Patients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory. RESULTS: Among ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77-1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46-0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%-12.8% vs 1.4%-5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months' minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02231749.

Deferred Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The use of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) selectively for patients who show a favorable response to upfront systemic therapy may be an approach to select optimal candidates with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are most likely to benefit. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize outcomes of deferred CN (dCN) after upfront sunitinib, outcomes relative to sunitinib alone, and outcomes of CN followed by sunitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the prospectively maintained International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database to identify patients with newly diagnosed mRCC (2006-2018). INTERVENTION: Sunitinib alone, upfront CN followed by sunitinib, sunitinib followed by dCN. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were overall survival (OS) and time to sunitinib treatment failure (TTF). Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed; dCN was analyzed as a time-varying covariate to account for immortal time bias. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We evaluated 1541 patients, of whom 651 (42%) received sunitinib alone, 805 (52%) underwent CN followed by sunitinib, and 85 (5.5%) received sunitinib followed by dCN, at a median of 7.8 mo from diagnosis. Median OS periods for patients treated with sunitinib alone, CN followed by sunitinib, and sunitinib followed by dCN were 10, 19, and 46 mo, respectively, while the median TTF values were 4, 8, and 13 mo, respectively. In multivariable regression analyses, sunitinib followed by dCN was significantly associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.60, p < 0.001) and TTF (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.85, p = 0.003) versus sunitinib alone. Among CN-treated patients, sunitinib followed by dCN was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.70, p < 0.001) and TTF (HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90, p = 0.005) compared with upfront CN followed by sunitinib. In various sensitivity analyses, dCN remained significantly associated with improved OS and TTF. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received dCN were carefully selected and achieved long OS. With these benchmark outcomes, optimal selection criteria need to be identified and confirmation of the role of dCN in a clinical trial is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: We characterized benchmark survival outcomes for patients with metastatic kidney cancer treated with sunitinib alone, nephrectomy (kidney removal) followed by sunitinib, and sunitinib followed by nephrectomy. Patients who had their nephrectomy after an initial course of sunitinib had prolonged survival.