Comparison of Cabozantinib and Axitinib as Second-line Therapy After Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparative Analysis of Retrospective Real-world Data.

BACKGROUND: To date, no studies have compared the treatment outcomes of second-line therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line treatments in patients with metastatic ccRCC who previously received immune-oncology combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment were identified among 243 patients with RCC treated between August 1, 2018 and January 31, 2022 at 34 institutions belonging to the Japanese Urological Oncology Group. Patients were assessed for treatment outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and incidence rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Forty-eight patients treated with cabozantinib and 60 treated with axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment for metastatic ccRCC were identified. The median PFS (95% confidence interval) was 11.0 months (9.0-16.0) with cabozantinib and 9.5 months (6.0-13.0) with axitinib. The ORRs were 37.5% (cabozantinib) and 38.3% (axitinib). The rates of any-grade AEs and grade ≥3 AEs were 79.2% (cabozantinib) versus 63.3% (axitinib; P = .091) and 35.4% (cabozantinib) versus 23.3% (axitinib; P = .202), respectively. In the poor-risk group, PFS was longer in the cabozantinib group than in the axitinib group (P = .033). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and axitinib were comparable. In the poor-risk group, cabozantinib was more effective than axitinib. These findings provide valuable insights into the selection of second-line treatment options after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment in patients with metastatic ccRCC.

Tumor infiltrating B lymphocytes (TIBs) associate with poor clinical outcomes, unfavorable therapeutic benefit and immunosuppressive context in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) patients treated with anti-PD-1 antibody plus Axitinib.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has become first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients. This study aims to investigate the effect of tumor infiltrating B lymphocytes (TIBs) on the combination therapy. METHODS: The retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical records of 115 metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) patients treated with anti-PD-1 antibody plus Axitinib between March 2020 and June 2023. Observation target: objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and immune profile. RESULTS: Patients with high TIBs portended lower ORR of the combination therapy (p = 0.033). TIBs was an independent predictor for poorer OS (p = 0.013) and PFS (p = 0.021) in mccRCC patients with combination treatment. TIBs infiltration was associated with more CD4+T (p < 0.001), CD8+T (p < 0.001), M2 macrophages (p = 0.020) and regulatory T cells (Tregs) (p = 0.004). In TIBs high patients, the percentages of PD-1, CTLA-4 and TIM-3 positive rate were significantly increased in CD4+T (p = 0.038, 0.029 and 0.002 respectively) and CD8+T cells (p = 0.006, 0.026 and < 0.001 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed TIBs infiltration predicted adverse outcomes in mccRCC patients treated with anti-PD-1 antibody plus Axitinib. As a corollary, TIBs positively associated with M2 macrophages and Tregs, leading to subsequent multiple immune checkpoints related exhaustion of T cells. Thus, only PD-1 blockade are inadequate to reverse T cells exhaustion effectively in high TIBs mccRCC patients.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Inter-individual variability in drug response pose significant challenges to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). TKIs meet traditional criteria for using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), but research is still limited. Understanding the role of TDM in individualizing treatment strategies could help optimize treatment. Here we review the state of knowledge of TDM for TKIs in mRCC treatment. A comprehensive literature review of original research studies focusing on TDM of TKIs in mRCC treatment, clinical in vivo studies reporting on pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics, therapeutic ranges, drug concentrations, dose adjustments, clinical outcomes, or other relevant aspects related to TDM. We reviewed studies involving human subjects published in peer-reviewed journals. A narrative synthesis approach was employed to summarize the findings. Key themes and trends related to TDM of TKIs in mRCC treatment were identified and synthesized to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge. Our search yielded 25 articles. Most were observational. The most consistently reported association between plasma concentration and effect was pazopanib Ctrough >20 µg/mL, but this concentration was not significant across all studies. We found inconsistent evidence for sunitinib and cabozantinib. For axitinib, we found a clear exposure-response relationship, but research was too diverse to conclude on a therapeutic window to use for TDM. We found much heterogeneity between recommended time of measurement (minimum plasma concentration [Cmin], maximal plasma concentration [Cmax], area under the curve [AUC]) and large variation in plasma concentration associated with clinical outcomes, which makes it difficult to recommend specific concentration intervals based on 1 or more of these measurements. Results were more consistent with TKIs continuously administered. Further research is needed to elucidate the long-term impact of TDM to possibly establish standardized therapeutic intervals. Prospective studies are suggested. The application of TDM in TKI-combination therapy is warranted in future research.

Economic value of toripalimab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma in China: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The current analysis aimed to evaluate the economic benefit of toripalimab plus axitinib for previously untreated RCC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: The partitioned survival model was developed to simulate 3-week patients' transition in 20-year time horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for advanced RCC. Survival data were gathered from the RENOTORCH trial, and cost and utility inputs were obtained from the database and published literature. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outputs. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to increase the comprehensiveness and estimate the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, compared with sunitinib, toripalimab plus axitinib could bring additional 1.19 LYs and 0.65 QALYs, with the marginal cost of $41,499.23, resulting in the ICER of $64,337.49/QALY, which is higher than the WTP threshold. And ICERs were always beyond the WTP threshold of all subgroups. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the model results were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Toripalimab plus axitinib was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with previously untreated advanced RCC compared with sunitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Prognostic outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving second-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitor following first-line immune-oncology combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the prognostic outcomes in mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI following first-line IO combination therapy. METHODS: This study retrospectively included 243 mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI after first-line IO combination therapy: nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 189, IO-IO group) and either pembrolizumab plus axitinib or avelumab plus axitinib (n = 54, IO-TKI group). Oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared, and prognostication systems were developed for these patients. RESULTS: In the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups, the objective response rates to second-line TKI were 34.4% and 25.9% (p = 0.26), the median PFS periods were 9.7 and 7.1 months (p = 0.79), and the median OS periods after the introduction of second-line TKI were 23.1 and 33.5 months (p = 0.93), respectively. Among the several factors examined, non-CCRCC, high CRP, and low albumin levels were identified as independent predictors of both poor PFS and OS by multivariate analyses. It was possible to precisely classify the patients into 3 risk groups regarding both PFS and OS according to the positive numbers of the independent prognostic factors. Furthermore, the c-indices of this study were superior to those of previous systems as follows: 0.75, 0.64, and 0.61 for PFS prediction and 0.76, 0.70, and 0.65 for OS prediction by the present, IMDC, and MSKCC systems, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the prognostic outcomes after introducing second-line TKI between the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups, and the histopathology, CRP and albumin levels had independent impacts on the prognosis in mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI, irrespective of first-line IO combination therapies.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, and Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on results from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426. Our objective was to compare the adjusted, lifetime cost-effectiveness between nivolumab-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-axitinib, and sunitinib for patients with mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed comparing nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib to each other and sunitinib, over a 20-year lifetime horizon from a US medical center perspective. The clinical outcomes of nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Costs of drug treatment, adverse events, and utilities associated with different health states and adverse events were determined using national sources and published literature. Our outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective option in the base case analysis with an ICER of $34,190/QALY compared with sunitinib, while the pembrolizumab-axitinib ICER was dominated by nivolumab-ipilimumab and was not cost-effective (ICER=$12,630,828/QALY) compared with sunitinib. The mean total costs per patient for the nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib arms were $284,683 and $457,769, respectively, compared with sunitinib at $241,656. QALY was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (3.23 QALY) than for adjusted pembrolizumab-axitinib (1.99 QALY), which was longer than sunitinib's (1.98 QALY). These results were most sensitive to treatment cost in both groups, but plausible changes did not alter the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The base case scenario indicated that nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for mRCC compared with pembrolizumab-axitinib and sunitinib.

Clinical Importance of Plasma Drug Concentration of Oral Molecular Targeted Drugs for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is widely used in clinical practice to maximize drug efficacy and minimize toxicities. Currently, it is also practiced in the use of oral molecular targeted drugs. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical importance of measuring the systemic concentration of oral molecular targeted drugs used to treat renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: The systemic concentrations of the oral molecular targeted drugs sorafenib, sunitinib, axitinib, pazopanib, and everolimus used for RCC were useful for therapeutic interventions, and clinical outcomes were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: The interventional use of systemic drug concentration was confirmed in 26 of 87, and their categories are presented. The systemic concentration of sunitinib was useful in dose reduction and/or discontinuation (n = 10), dose escalation (n = 3), and adherence monitoring (n = 2). Nine of the 10 patients whose dose was reduced showed reduced adverse event. Two patients who were intervened in adherence monitor showed improved adherence. For axitinib, dose reduction and/or discontinuation (n = 1) and dose escalation (n = 6) were confirmed. For pazopanib, dose reduction and/or discontinuation (n = 1) and drug interaction detection (n = 1) were confirmed, both of them were confirmed to have reduced adverse events. For everolimus, dose reduction and/or discontinuation (n = 1) and drug interaction detection (n = 1) were confirmed, a patient with reduced dose recovered from adverse events. Interventions for sorafenib were not identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that systemic concentrations of oral molecular targeted drugs for RCC were considered to be clinically useful for dose adjustment, monitoring of treatment adherence, and the detection of drug interactions. Moreover, this information could be successfully used to guide individualized therapy to maximize the antitumor effects of these drugs.

Real-world outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma according to risk factors: the STAR-TOR registry.

Aim: Examine outcomes in sunitinib-treated patients by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) or Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk factors. Patients & methods: Patients enrolled in STAR-TOR registry (n = 327). End points included overall survival, progression-free survival and objective response rate. Results: Overall survival was similar for IMDC 0 versus 1 (p = 0.238) or 2 versus ≥3 (p = 0.156), but different for MSKCC (0 vs 1, p = 0.037; 2 vs ≥3, p = 0.001). Progression-free survival was similar for IMDC 2 versus 3 (p = 0.306), but different for MSKCC (p = 0.009). Objective response rate was different for IMDC 1 (41.9%) and 2 (29.5%) and similar for MSKCC 1 (34.4%) and 2 (31.0%). Conclusion: Outcome data varied according to IMDC or MSKCC. MSKCC model accurately stratify patients into risk groups. Clinical trial registration: NCT00700258 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Combination antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibition and anti-PD1 immunotherapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective analysis of safety, tolerance, and clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Two separate antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immunotherapy (IO) combinations are FDA-approved as front-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about off-protocol and post-front-line experience with combination TKI-IO approaches. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of mRCC patients who received combination TKI-IO post-first-line therapy between November 2015 and January 2019 at MD Anderson Cancer Center and Duke Cancer Institute. Chart review detailed patient characteristics, treatments, toxicity, and survival. Independent radiologists, blinded to clinical data, assessed best radiographic response using RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: We identified 48 mRCC patients for inclusion: median age 65 years, 75.0% clear cell histology, 68.8% IMDC intermediate risk, and median two prior systemic therapies. TKI-IO combinations included nivolumab-cabozantinib (N +C; 24 patients), nivolumab-pazopanib (N+P; 13), nivolumab-axitinib (6), nivolumab-lenvatinib (2), and nivolumab-ipilimumab-cabozantinib (3). The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and the median overall survival was not reached. Response data were available in 45 patients: complete response (CR; n = 3, 6.7%), partial response (PR; 20, 44.4%), stable disease (SD; 19, 42.2%), and progressive disease (3, 6.7%). Overall response rate was 51% and disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) was 93%. Only one patient had a grade ≥3 adverse event. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first case series reporting off-label use of combination TKI-IO for mRCC. TKI-IO combinations, particularly N+P and N+C, are well tolerated and efficacious. Although further prospective research is essential, slow disease progression on IO or TKI monotherapy may be safely controlled with addition of either TKI or IO.

Toxicities of axitinib, sunitinib and temsirolimus: implications for progression-free and overall survival in metastatic renal cell cancer.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between axitinib, sunitinib and temsirolimus toxicities and patient survival in metastatic renal cell cancer patients. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of metastatic renal cell cancer patients from the prospective multicenter STAR-TOR study were assessed using multivariable Cox models. A total of 1195 patients were included (n = 149 axitinib; n = 546 sunitinib; n = 500 temsirolimus). The following toxicities significantly predicted outcomes: hand-foot skin reaction (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.29) for PFS with axitinib; stomatitis (HR = 0.62) and pneumonitis (HR = 0.23) for PFS with temsirolimus; stomatitis (HR = 0.52) and thrombocytopenia (HR = 0.6) for OS with temsirolimus; fatigue (HR = 0.71) for PFS with sunitinib; hand-foot skin reaction (HR = 0.56) and fatigue (HR = 0.58) for OS with sunitinib. In conclusion, in metastatic renal cell cancer, axitinib, sunitinib and temsirolimus demonstrate specific toxicities that are protective OS/PFS predictors.

Efficacy of axitinib in metastatic head and neck cancer with novel radiographic response criteria.

BACKGROUND: There are limited treatment options for unresectable recurrent or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Vascular endothelial growth factor is of significant interest for targeted therapy in R/M HNSCC because of its central role in tumorigenesis and immunosuppression. Axitinib is a potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) 1 , VEGFR2, VEGFR3, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, as well as c-kit and offers such an approach. METHODS: This article reports the results of a phase 2 trial evaluating axitinib in R/M HNSCC according to the Choi criteria for radiographic response assessment. The primary endpoint of this trial was 6-month overall survival. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled, and 28 were evaluable for a response. Patients were heavily pretreated with 61% having had at least 1 previous systemic treatment in the metastatic setting (range, 0-5). The median overall survival of 9.8 months and the 6-month overall survival rate of 70% met the protocol-defined criteria for clinical efficacy. The best overall response rate was 42%. Correlative analyses demonstrated that PI3K signaling pathway alterations were associated with an increased response to therapy (75% vs 17%). A marked response to therapy was seen in a subgroup of patients who were treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor after progression on axitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with axitinib is associated with improved survival in patients with heavily pretreated head and neck cancer, and PI3K pathway alterations may serve as a biomarker for response. Further investigation is warranted to evaluate axitinib in biomarker-selected populations, especially in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. LAY SUMMARY: Metastatic head and neck squamous cancer is an incurable disease with limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. This study is the first to demonstrate that the targeted oral drug axitinib improves survival in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic head and neck cancer. Furthermore, patients whose tumors have specific mutations derive the greatest benefit from therapy. The investigation of axitinib alone or in combination with immunotherapy in a genomic biomarker-selected population is warranted.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. INTERPRETATION: With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: biomarker analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial.

We report on molecular analyses of baseline tumor samples from the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (n = 886; NCT02684006 ), which demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We found that neither expression of the commonly assessed biomarker programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) nor tumor mutational burden differentiated PFS in either study arm. Similarly, the presence of FcɣR single nucleotide polymorphisms was unimpactful. We identified important biological features associated with differential PFS between the treatment arms, including new immunomodulatory and angiogenesis gene expression signatures (GESs), previously undescribed mutational profiles and their corresponding GESs, and several HLA types. These findings provide insight into the determinants of response to combined PD-1/PD-L1 and angiogenic pathway inhibition and may aid in the development of strategies for improved patient care in aRCC.

Angiogenic and Immune-Related Biomarkers and Outcomes Following Axitinib/Pembrolizumab Treatment in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Combined axitinib/pembrolizumab is approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This exploratory analysis examined associations between angiogenic and immune-related biomarkers and outcomes following axitinib/pembrolizumab treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively defined retrospective correlative exploratory analyses tested biospecimens from 52 treatment-naïve patients receiving axitinib and pembrolizumab (starting doses 5 mg twice daily and 2 mg/kg respectively, every 3 weeks). Tumor tissue, serum, and whole blood samples were collected at baseline, at cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1), and end of treatment (EOT) for blood-based samples. Clinical outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Higher baseline tumor levels of CD8 showed a trend toward longer PFS (HR 0.4; P = 0.091). Higher baseline serum levels of CXCL10 (P = 0.0197) and CEACAM1 (P = 0.085) showed a trend toward better ORR and longer PFS, respectively. Patients for whom IL6 was not detected at baseline had longer PFS versus patients for whom it was detected (HR 0.4; P = 0.028). At C2D1 and/or EOT, mainly immune-related biomarkers showed any association with better outcomes. The genes CA9 (P = 0.084), HIF1A (P = 0.064), and IFNG (P = 0.073) showed trending associations with ORR, and AKT3 (P = 0.0145), DDX58 (P = 0.0726), GZMA (P = 0.0666), LCN2 (NGAL; P = 0.0267), and PTPN11 (P = 0.0287) with PFS. CONCLUSIONS: With combined axitinib/pembrolizumab treatment in patients with aRCC, mostly immune-related biomarkers are associated with better treatment outcomes. This exploratory analysis has identified some candidate biomarkers to consider in future prospective testing.

Treating metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: beyond immunotherapy.

First-line treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma patients with intermediate and poor-risk features consists of a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., nivolumab + ipilimumab) or immunotherapy with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) drug (e.g., axitinib). The subsequent line of therapy should be determined on the basis of previous treatments and approved drugs available, based on the results of randomized clinical trials. Unfortunately, no phase 3 trial has compared the safety and efficacy of drugs after immunotherapy; thus, drug choice is more empirical than evidence-based. As the tumor may still be anti-VEGFR drug-naïve, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for first line treatment (e.g., sunitinib or pazopanib) may be beneficial. Because this is a second-line treatment, patients could also receive axitinib, cabozantinib, or a combination of lenvatinib and everolimus. The treating physician should choose an appropriate treatment according to the patient's age, comorbidities, and tolerability of previous checkpoint inhibitors, among other considerations. Cases of patients with renal cell carcinoma refractory to checkpoint inhibitor treatment are growing, warranting a review of the activity and safety of target therapies after immunotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Pembrolizumab/axitinib significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and increased objective response rate versus sunitinib in the phase III trial KEYNOTE-426 among previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab/axitinib versus other first-line treatments of advanced RCC from a US public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three states (progression-free, progressed, death) evaluated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for pembrolizumab/axitinib and other first-line regimens: sunitinib, pazopanib and avelumab/axitinib in the overall population; and sunitinib, cabozantinib and nivolumab/ipilimumab in the subgroup with intermediate/poor prognostic risk. Costs of treatments, adverse events and medical resources were estimated. OS, PFS and treatment duration were extrapolated using parametric models fitted to KEYNOTE-426 data and hazard ratios from network meta-analyses. Utilities were derived through mixed-effects regressions of KEYNOTE-426 EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Levels data. RESULTS: In the overall population, pembrolizumab/axitinib was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $95,725/QALY versus sunitinib and $128,210/QALY versus pazopanib, and was dominant (lower cost, higher effectiveness) versus avelumab/axitinib, with incremental QALY gains of 2.73, 2.40 and 1.80 versus these therapies, respectively. In the intermediate/poor-risk subgroup, base-case ICERs for pembrolizumab/axitinib were $101,030/QALY versus sunitinib, $6989/QALY versus cabozantinib, and $130,934/QALY versus nivolumab/ipilimumab, with incremental QALY gains of 2.62, 1.78 and 1.06 versus these therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In this economic evaluation, pembrolizumab/axitinib was associated with higher life expectancy and QALYs and, based on typical willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150,000-$180,000/QALY, was found cost-effective versus other first-line treatments for advanced RCC in the US.

Axitinib plus immune checkpoint inhibitor: evidence- and expert-based consensus recommendation for treatment optimisation and management of related adverse events.

With the recent approval of the combinations of axitinib with the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) pembrolizumab or avelumab for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, guidance on how to distinguish between immune-related adverse events (AEs) caused by ICI versus axitinib-related AEs is necessary to optimise therapy with axitinib-ICI combinations. The recommendations here are based on (1) systematic review of published evidence, (2) discussion among experts in the field and (3) a survey to obtain expert consensus on specific measures for therapy management with the combinations axitinib/avelumab and axitinib/pembrolizumab. The experts identified areas of AEs requiring unique management during treatment with axitinib-ICI combinations that were not covered by current recommendations. Diarrhoea, hepatic toxicity, fatigue and cardiovascular AEs were found to be applicable to such specialised management. Triage between immune-suppressive and supportive measures is a key component in therapy management. Clinical monitoring and experience with both classes of agents are necessary to manage this novel therapeutic approach. We focused on AEs with an overlap between axitinib and ICI therapy. Our recommendations address AE management of axitinib-ICI combinations with the aim to improve the safety of these therapies.

Efficacy of Axitinib After Nivolumab Failure in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Whether molecular-targeted therapy, particularly axitinib, is effective after failure of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the therapeutic effect of axitinib as a third-line therapy following second-line nivolumab monotherapy for mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients treated with axitinib as a third-line therapy after failure of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and second-line nivolumab monotherapy were reviewed. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate during axitinib therapy were retrospectively evaluated. Tumor responses were assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were treated with third-line axitinib after failure of prior TKI and nivolumab. During a median follow-up of 8.15 months, eight (47.1%) and three (17.6%) patients showed disease progression and died, respectively. The median PFS was 12.8 months [95% confidence interval=(CI)4.08-21.7], the 1-year PFS rate was 51.3%, and the 1-year OS rate was 71.6%. The median magnitude of maximum changes of targeted lesions from baseline was -11.9% (95%CI=-36.1-0.44%). The objective response rate and disease control rates were 29.4% (n=5) and 94.1% (n=16), respectively. Univariate analysis for PFS showed a shorter PFS in patients with non-clear cell histopathological types or those with liver metastases (p-Value<0.0001 for both). CONCLUSION: Axitinib as a third-line therapy showed reasonable therapeutic efficacy after the failure of first-line TKI and second-line nivolumab monotherapy for mRCC. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Oncological outcomes of a multicenter cohort treated with axitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the real-world use of axitinib and to develop a prognostic model for stratifying patients who could derive long-term benefit from axitinib. This was a retrospective, descriptive study evaluating the efficacy of axitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that had been treated with 1 or 2 systemic antiangiogenic therapy regimens at 1 of 36 hospitals belonging to the Japan Urologic Oncology Group between January 2012 and February 2019. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Using a split-sample method, candidate variables that exhibited significant relationships with OS were chosen to create a model. The new model was validated using the rest of the cohort. In total, 485 patients were enrolled. The median OS was 34 months in the entire study population, whereas it was not reached, 27 months, and 14 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, according to the new risk classification model. The following 4 variables were included in the final risk model: the disease stage at diagnosis, number of metastatic sites at the start of axitinib therapy, serum albumin level, and neutrophil : lymphocyte ratio. The adjusted area under the curve values of the new model at 12, 36, and 60 months were 0.77, 0.82, and 0.82, respectively. The efficacy of axitinib in routine practice is comparable or even superior to that reported previously. The patients in the new model's favorable risk group might derive a long-term survival benefit from axitinib treatment.

The effects of combination treatments on drug resistance in chronic myeloid leukaemia: an evaluation of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors axitinib and asciminib.

BACKGROUND: Chronic myeloid leukaemia is in principle a treatable malignancy but drug resistance is lowering survival. Recent drug discoveries have opened up new options for drug combinations, which is a concept used in other areas for preventing drug resistance. Two of these are (I) Axitinib, which inhibits the T315I mutation of BCR-ABL1, a main source of drug resistance, and (II) Asciminib, which has been developed as an allosteric BCR-ABL1 inhibitor, targeting an entirely different binding site, and as such does not compete for binding with other drugs. These drugs offer new treatment options. METHODS: We measured the proliferation of KCL-22 cells exposed to imatinib-dasatinib, imatinib-asciminib and dasatinib-asciminib combinations and calculated combination index graphs for each case. Moreover, using the median-effect equation we calculated how much axitinib can reduce the growth advantage of T315I mutant clones in combination with available drugs. In addition, we calculated how much the total drug burden could be reduced by combinations using asciminib and other drugs, and evaluated which mutations such combinations might be sensitive to. RESULTS: Asciminib had synergistic interactions with imatinib or dasatinib in KCL-22 cells at high degrees of inhibition. Interestingly, some antagonism between asciminib and the other drugs was present at lower degrees on inhibition. Simulations revealed that asciminib may allow for dose reductions, and its complementary resistance profile could reduce the risk of mutation based resistance. Axitinib, however, had only a minor effect on T315I growth advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Given how asciminib combinations were synergistic in vitro, our modelling suggests that drug combinations involving asciminib should allow for lower total drug doses, and may result in a reduced spectrum of observed resistance mutations. On the other hand, a combination involving axitinib was not shown to be useful in countering drug resistance.