Impact of renal cell carcinoma molecular subtypes on immunotherapy and targeted therapy outcomes.

Saliby et al. show that a machine learning approach can accurately classify clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) into distinct molecular subtypes using transcriptomic data. When applied to tumors biospecimens from the JAVELIN Renal 101 (JR101) trial, a benefit is observed with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy across all molecular subtypes.

Randomized Phase II Study Evaluating the Addition of Pembrolizumab to Radium-223 in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

The checkpoint immunotherapeutic pembrolizumab induces responses in a small minority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Radium-223 (R223) may increase immunogenicity of bone metastases and increase pembrolizumab (P) activity. In a randomized phase II study, we assessed the effect of R223+P compared with R223 on tumor immune infiltration, safety, and clinical outcomes in patients with mCRPC. The primary endpoint was differences in CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell infiltrate in 8-week versus baseline bone metastasis biopsies; secondary endpoints were safety, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS). Of the 42 treated patients (29 R223+P, 13 R223), 18 R223+P and 8 R223 patients had evaluable paired tumor biopsies. Median fold-change of CD4+ T cells was -0.7 (range: -9.3 to 4.7) with R223+P and 0.1 (-11.1 to 3.7) with R223 (P = 0.66); for CD8+ T cells, median fold-change was -0.6 (-7.4 to 5.3) with R223+P and -1.3 (-3.1 to 4.8) with R223 (P = 0.66). Median rPFS and OS was 6.1 (95% confidence interval: 2.7-11.0) and 16.9 months [12.7-not reached (NR)], respectively, with R223+P and 5.7 (2.6-NR) and 16.0 (9.0-NR), respectively, with R223. Although R223+P was well tolerated with no unexpected toxicity, the combination did not improve efficacy. High-dimensional flow cytometry demonstrated minimal immune modulation with R223, whereas R223+P induced CTLA-4 expression on circulating CD4+ T cells. Clinical responders possessed lower circulating frequencies of Ki67+ T and myeloid cells at baseline and higher circulating frequencies of TIM-3+ T and myeloid cells by week 9. Although R223+P did not induce T-cell infiltration into the tumor microenvironment, exhaustion of induced peripheral T-cell immune responses may dampen the combination's clinical activity.

One Size Fits Some: Approaching Rare Malignancies of the Urinary Tract.

OPINION STATEMENT: Urothelial carcinoma is the predominant cancer of the urinary tract but when divergent and subtype histology (non-urothelial) are identified at time of pathologic diagnosis, therapeutic and diagnostic challenges transpire. To this end, pathologic review to confirm any non-urothelial histology is key since these subtypes can often be overlooked. Few prospective trials are dedicated to understanding these non-urothelial histologic types; however, current, and past trials did allow patients with these non-urothelial histologic types to enroll, and inferences can be made about treatment efficacy and survival. Existing treatment regimens for non-urothelial bladder cancers are akin to standard urothelial cancer regimens using surgical approaches for localized disease and platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced disease. The reported clinical trials, that will be discussed, center on non-urothelial histologic types. These studies, albeit limited, provide critical insight into tumor biology and response to standard platinum-based chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and antibody drug conjugates. The inclusion of non-urothelial histologic types will be essential for clinical trials in development to provide further therapeutic advances and provide essential efficacy data.

Comprehensive multiplexed autoantibody profiling of patients with advanced urothelial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive profiling of autoantibodies (AAbs) in metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) has not been performed to date. This may aid in diagnosis of UC, uncover novel therapeutic targets in this disease as well as identify associations between AAbs and response and toxicity to systemic therapies. METHODS: We used serum from patients with mUC collected prior to and after systemic therapy (immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) or platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC)) at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 38 age-matched and sex-matched healthy controls (HCs) from healthy blood donors were also evaluated. The SeroTag immuno-oncology discovery array (Oncimmune) was used, with quantification of the AAb reactivity toward 1132 antigens. Bound AAbs were detected using an anti-immunoglobulin G-specific detection antibody conjugated to the fluorescent reporter dye phycoerythrin. The AAb reactivity was reported as the median fluorescence intensity for each color and sample using a Luminex FlexMAP3D analyzer. Clinical outcomes of interest included radiographic response and development of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Significance analysis of microarray was used to compare mUC versus HC and radiographic response. Associations with irAE were evaluated using a logistic regression model. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: 66 patients were included with a median age of 68 years; 54 patients (82%) received ICI and 12 patients (18%) received PBC. Compared with HCs, AAbs against the cancer/testis antigens (CTAG1B, CTAG2, MAGEB18), HSPA1A, TP53, KRAS, and FGFR3 were significantly elevated in patients with mUC. AAbs against BRCA2, TP53, and CTNBB1 were associated with response, and those against BICD2 and UACA were associated with resistance to ICI therapy. AAbs against MITF, CDH3, and KDM4A were associated with development of irAEs in patient who received an ICI. A higher variance in pre-to-post treatment fold change in AAb levels was seen in patients treated with ICI versus PBC and was associated with response to ICI. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of comprehensive AAb profiling of patients with mUC and identified key AAbs that were elevated in patients with mUC versus HCs as well as AAbs associated with therapeutic response to ICI. These findings are hypothesis generating and further mechanistic studies evaluating humoral immunity in UC are required.

Vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma pretreated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify evidence for use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based therapy. METHODS: This was a PRISMA-standard systematic literature review; registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255568). Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (January 28, 2021; updated September 13, 2022) to identify publications reporting efficacy/effectiveness and safety/tolerability evidence for anti-VEGF treatment in patients with RCC who had received prior CPI therapy. RESULTS: Of 2,639 publications screened, 48 were eligible and featured 2,759 patients treated in trials and 2,209 in real-world studies (RWS). Most patients with available data were treated with anti-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens (trials: 93 %; RWS: 100 %), most commonly cabozantinib, which accounted for 46 % of trial and 62 % of RWS patients in publications with available data. Collectively, there was consistent evidence of anti-VEGF treatment activity after prior CPI therapy. Activity was reported for all anti-VEGF regimens and regardless of prior CPI-based regimen. No new safety signals were detected for subsequent anti-VEGF therapy; no studies suggested increased immune-related adverse events associated with prior CPI therapy. The results were limited by data quality; study heterogeneity prohibited meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Based on the available data (most commonly for cabozantinib), anti-VEGF therapy appears to be a rational treatment choice in patients with RCC who have progressed despite prior CPI-based therapy. Results from ongoing trials of combination anti-VEGF plus CPI regimen post prior CPI therapy trials will contribute more definitive evidence. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Anticancer treatments that work by reducing levels of a substance in the body called Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor are known as anti-VEGF drugs. Reducing VEGF levels helps to reduce blood supply to tumors, which can slow the speed at which the cancer grows. Some other types of anticancer drugs that help the immune system to fight cancer cells are called checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we looked at published studies that investigated how anti-VEGF drugs work, and what side effects they cause, in people who have already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors for a type of kidney cancer called renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to summarize the available evidence to help doctors decide how best to use anti-VEGF drugs in these patients. We found 48 studies that included almost 5,000 patients. The results of the studies showed that anti-VEGF drugs have anticancer effects in people with renal cell carcinoma who had already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors. All of the VEGF-targeting drugs had anticancer effects, irrespective of what checkpoint inhibitor treatment people had received before. There were different amounts of evidence available for the different anti-VEGF drugs. The anti-VEGF cabozantinib had the largest amount of evidence. Importantly, previous checkpoint inhibitor treatment did not seem to affect the number or type of side-effects associated with anti-VEGF drugs. Results from ongoing, well-designed studies will be helpful to confirm these results. Our findings may be useful for doctors considering using anti-VEGF drugs in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have received checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent. METHODS: Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4). CONCLUSION: Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

IGF-1 axis changes with ADT and docetaxel in metastatic prostate cancer.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) forms the cornerstone of treatment in locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Since the growth hormone-insulin-like growth factor (GH-IGF-1) axis has been implicated in prostate tumorigenesis, we aimed to evaluate the association between IGF-1 and its binding proteins on outcomes in men with metastatic PCa treated with ADT, with or without docetaxel (D). We analyzed serum samples for IGF-1 and its family proteins from baseline, 6 months post-randomization, and at the time of progression in men enrolled to receive ADT +/- D in the phase 3 CHAARTED trial. The key outcomes were time to the development of castrate-resistant prostate cancer and overall survival (OS). About 560 patients had samples available for analysis. At 6 months, significant increases in IGF-BP1 (mean Δ+27.4%, P = 0.033), IGF-BP3 (mean Δ+10.3%, P < 0.001), and IGF-BP4 (mean Δ+31.1%, P < 0.001) were seen in the ADT + D group, while the ADT group showed an increase in IGF-BP3 (mean Δ+5.5%, P = 0.015). A higher IGF-1:IGF-BP1 ratio at baseline and after 6 months was associated with improved OS in both the ADT (baseline: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77, P = 0.026; 6 months: HR = 0.83, P = 0.036) and ADT + D groups (baseline: HR = 0.78, P = 0.04; 6 months: HR = 0.81, P = 0.018). Patients with a log10IGF-1:IGF-BP1 ratio >1.3 at baseline had improved OS when meta-analyzed with data from a prior cohort (HR = 0.71). A higher baseline and 6-month IGF-1:IGF-BP1 ratio was associated with better OS. Further exploration of the IGF-1 axis will be important to assess its role as a predictive biomarker and to target this axis in therapeutic trials.

Challenges in conducting fractional polynomial and standard parametric network meta-analyses of immune checkpoint inhibitors for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aim: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) increasingly feature time-varying hazards to account for non-proportional hazards between different drug classes. This paper outlines an algorithm for selecting clinically plausible fractional polynomial NMA models. Methods: The NMA of four immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and one TKI therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) served as case study. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) data were reconstructed from the literature, 46 models were fitted. The algorithm entailed a-priori face validity criteria for survival and hazards, based on clinical expert input, and predictive accuracy against trial data. Selected models were compared with statistically best-fitting models. Results: Three valid PFS and two OS models were identified. All models overestimated PFS, the OS model featured crossing ICI + TKI versus TKI curves as per expert opinion. Conventionally selected models showed implausible survival. Conclusion: The selection algorithm considering face validity, predictive accuracy, and expert opinion improved the clinical plausibility of first-line RCC survival models.

Circulating and Intratumoral Immune Determinants of Response to Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Variant Histology or Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of variant histology comprises approximately 20% of kidney cancer diagnoses, yet the optimal therapy for these patients and the factors that impact immunotherapy response remain largely unknown. To better understand the determinants of immunotherapy response in this population, we characterized blood- and tissue-based immune markers for patients with variant histology RCC, or any RCC histology with sarcomatoid differentiation, enrolled in a phase II clinical trial of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. Baseline circulating (plasma) inflammatory cytokines were highly correlated with one another, forming an "inflammatory module" that was increased in International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium poor-risk patients and was associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS; P = 0.028). At baseline, an elevated circulating vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) level was associated with a lack of response (P = 0.03) and worse PFS (P = 0.021). However, a larger increase in on-treatment levels of circulating VEGF-A was associated with clinical benefit (P = 0.01) and improved overall survival (P = 0.0058). Among peripheral immune cell populations, an on-treatment decrease in circulating PD-L1+ T cells was associated with improved outcomes, with a reduction in CD4+PD-L1+ [HR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-0.91; P = 0.016] and CD8+PD-L1+ T cells (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87; P = 0.009) correlated with improved PFS. Within the tumor itself, a higher percentage of terminally exhausted (PD-1+ and either TIM-3+ or LAG-3+) CD8+ T cells was associated with worse PFS (P = 0.028). Overall, these findings support the value of tumor and blood-based immune assessments in determining therapeutic benefit for patients with RCC receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and provide a foundation for future biomarker studies for patients with variant histology RCC receiving immunotherapy-based combinations.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

The Natural History of Renal-Cell Carcinoma with Sarcomatoid Differentiation, a Stage-by-Stage Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sarcomatoid differentiation in patients diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma (sRCC) imply aggressive behavior and often metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. We aim to examine the overall survival (OS) in patients with sRCC using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients diagnosed with sRCC between 2010-2015. We employed Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to examine the impact of several potential risk factors on OS in patients diagnosed with sRCC. RESULTS: In total, 8582 patients with renal cancer were found to have sarcomatoid differentiation, with 4105 patients (47.8%) being diagnosed with AJCC stage IV disease. The median OS was 17.2 months (IQR 5.4, 68.7 months). Compared to patients who did not undergo surgery, OS was significantly longer in patients undergoing partial or total nephrectomy across all stages. This result remained consistent on multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics (Surgery: Hazard ratio 0.54, 95%Confidence interval 0.43 - 0.68, P < .001). CONCLUSION: In our cohort sRCC was found to have an unfavorable median OS, which was mainly caused by the high number of cases diagnosed with late-stage disease. Additionally, surgery was associated with favorable OS across all stages. This study supports the notion that surgical therapy, even in the setting of cytoreductive surgery, provides a survival benefit in patients with sRCC.

Cabozantinib Safety With Different Anticoagulants in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) on cabozantinib, venous thromboembolism (VTE) management remains challenging due to limited safety data regarding direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) use in conjunction with cabozantinib. We investigated the safety of cabozantinib with different anticoagulants in patients with RCC. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study (9 sites), patients with advanced RCC were allocated into 4 groups: (1) cabozantinib without anticoagulation, cabozantinib with concomitant use of (2) DOACs, (3) low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), or (4) warfarin. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of major bleeding events (defined per International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of new/recurrent VTE while anticoagulated. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2020, 298 patients with RCC received cabozantinib (no anticoagulant = 178, LMWH = 41, DOAC = 64, and warfarin = 15). Most patients had clear cell histology (78.5%) and IMDC intermediate/poor disease (78.2%). Cabozantinib was first, second, or ≥ third line in 21.8%, 31.9%, 43.3% of patients, respectively. Overall, there was no difference in major bleeding events between the no anticoagulant, LMWH, and DOAC groups (P = .088). Rate of new/recurrent VTE was similar among anticoagulant groups. Patients with a VTE had a statistically significantly worse survival than without a VTE (HR 1.48 [CI 95% 1.05-2.08, P = .02]). CONCLUSION: This real-world cohort provides first data on bleeding and thrombosis complications in patients with RCC treated with cabozantinib with or without concurrent anticoagulation. DOACs appear safe for VTE treatment for patients with RCC on cabozantinib, but optimized anticoagulation management, including individualized risk-benefit discussion, remains important in clinical practice.

CABOSEQ: The Effectiveness of Cabozantinib in Patients With Treatment Refractory Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).

BACKGROUND: There are limited data evaluating the activity of cabozantinib (CABO) as second line (2L) therapy post standard of care ipilimumab-nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) or immuno-oncology(IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (VEGFi) combinations (IOVE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the IMDC database, we sought to identify the objective response rate, time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) of 2L CABO after IPI-NIVO, IOVE combinations, pazopanib or sunitinib (PAZ/SUN) or other first line (1L) therapies. Multivariable Cox regression, adjusted for underlying differences in IMDC groups, was used to compare differences in OS for 2L CABO based on preceding therapy. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-six patients received 2L CABO (78 post IPI NIVO, 46 post IOVE, 161 post PAZ/SUN, 61 post Other). Of the entire cohort, 12.6%, 62.6%, and 24.8% were IMDC favourable, intermediate, and poor risk, respectively. Patients that received 1L IPI-NIVO had a median OS of 21.4 (95% CI, 12.1 - NE [Not evaluable]) months compared to 15.7 (95% CI, 9.3 - NE) months in 1L IOVE and 20.7 (95% CI, 15.6 - 35.6) months in 1L PAZ/SUN, P = .28. Median TTF from the initiation of 2L CABO in the overall population was 7.6 (95% CI, 6.6 - 9.0) months. We were unable to detect a significant difference in 2L CABO OS based on type of 1L therapy received: 1L IPI-NIVO (reference group) vs. 1L IOVE HR 1.73 (95% CI, 0.83 - 3.62 P = .14), 1L PAZ/SUN 1.16 (95% CI, 0.67 - 2.00 P = .60), however given the retrospective observational nature of this work a lack of sufficient power may contribute to this. CONCLUSION: In a large real world dataset, we identified clinically meaningful activity of 2L CABO after all evaluated contemporary 1L therapies, irrespective of whether the 1L regimen included a VEGFi. These are real world benchmarks with which to counsel our patients.

Phase II trial of CV301 vaccine combined with atezolizumab in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

CV301 comprises recombinant poxviruses, Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) and Fowlpox (FPV), encoding CEA, MUC-1, and co-stimulatory Molecules (TRICOM) ICAM-1, LFA-3, and B7-1. MVA-BN-CV301 is used for priming and FPV-CV301 is used for boosting. A Phase 2, single-arm trial was designed to evaluate CV301 plus atezolizumab as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) (Cohort 1) or progressing after platinum chemotherapy (Cohort 2). MVA-CV301 was given subcutaneously (SC) on Days 1 and 22 and FPV-CV301 SC from day 43 every 21 days for 4 doses, then tapered gradually over up to 2 years. Atezolizumab 1200 mg IV was given every 21 days. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Overall, 43 evaluable patients received therapy: 19 in Cohort 1; 24 in Cohort 2; nine experienced ≥ Grade 3 therapy-related adverse events. In Cohort 1, one had partial response (PR) (ORR 5.3%, 90% CI 0.3, 22.6). In Cohort 2, 1 complete response and 1 PR were noted (ORR 8.3%, 90% CI 1.5, 24.0). The trial was halted for futility. Patients exhibiting benefit demonstrated T-cell response to CEA and MUC-1. The trial illustrates the challenges in the development of vaccines, which should be guided by robust preclinical data.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

The Continuing Question of Adjuvant Therapy in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Treatment advances in kidney cancer continually evolve. The focus of treatment options continues with oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or intravenous immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Multiple trials exploring the role of adjuvant treatment after cytoreductive nephrectomy in high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma are currently ongoing. The discovery of biomarkers may help determine which patients benefit from these treatments, but these are not yet available outside clinical studies. Trials with combination therapies are also ongoing, especially using novel therapies with new mechanisms of action, and will hopefully provide more clues on proper patient and therapy selection in the adjuvant setting.