Custom scoring based on ecological topology of gut microbiota associated with cancer immunotherapy outcome.

The gut microbiota influences the clinical responses of cancer patients to immunecheckpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, there is no consensus definition of detrimental dysbiosis. Based on metagenomics (MG) sequencing of 245 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient feces, we constructed species-level co-abundance networks that were clustered into species-interacting groups (SIGs) correlating with overall survival. Thirty-seven and forty-five MG species (MGSs) were associated with resistance (SIG1) and response (SIG2) to ICIs, respectively. When combined with the quantification of Akkermansia species, this procedure allowed a person-based calculation of a topological score (TOPOSCORE) that was validated in an additional 254 NSCLC patients and in 216 genitourinary cancer patients. Finally, this TOPOSCORE was translated into a 21-bacterial probe set-based qPCR scoring that was validated in a prospective cohort of NSCLC patients as well as in colorectal and melanoma patients. This approach could represent a dynamic diagnosis tool for intestinal dysbiosis to guide personalized microbiota-centered interventions.

Belzutifan versus Everolimus for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Belzutifan, a hypoxia-inducible factor 2α inhibitor, showed clinical activity in clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in early-phase studies. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, active-controlled trial, we enrolled participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies and randomly assigned them, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive 120 mg of belzutifan or 10 mg of everolimus orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. The key secondary end point was the occurrence of an objective response (a confirmed complete or partial response). RESULTS: A total of 374 participants were assigned to belzutifan, and 372 to everolimus. At the first interim analysis (median follow-up, 18.4 months), the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in both groups; at 18 months, 24.0% of the participants in the belzutifan group and 8.3% in the everolimus group were alive and free of progression (two-sided P = 0.002, which met the prespecified significance criterion). A confirmed objective response occurred in 21.9% of the participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.8 to 26.5) in the belzutifan group and in 3.5% (95% CI, 1.9 to 5.9) in the everolimus group (P<0.001, which met the prespecified significance criterion). At the second interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.7 months), the median overall survival was 21.4 months in the belzutifan group and 18.1 months in the everolimus group; at 18 months, 55.2% and 50.6% of the participants, respectively, were alive (hazard ratio for death, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.07; two-sided P = 0.20, which did not meet the prespecified significance criterion). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 61.8% of the participants in the belzutifan group (grade 5 in 3.5%) and in 62.5% in the everolimus group (grade 5 in 5.3%). Adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment in 5.9% and 14.7% of the participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Belzutifan showed a significant benefit over everolimus with respect to progression-free survival and objective response in participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. Belzutifan was associated with no new safety signals. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; LITESPARK-005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04195750.).

Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS: Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.).

Tivozanib plus nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma following an immune checkpoint inhibitor: results of the phase 3 TiNivo-2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are cornerstones of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, optimal treatment sequencing after progression is unknown. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes of tivozanib-nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed following one or two lines of therapy in the post-ICI setting. METHODS: TiNivo-2 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 190 sites across 16 countries, in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and progression during or after one to two previous lines of therapy (including one ICI) were randomised 1:1 to tivozanib (0·89 mg per day, orally) plus nivolumab (480 mg every 4 weeks, intravenously) or tivozanib (1·34 mg per day, orally). Randomisation was stratified by immediate previous therapy (ICI or non-ICI) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to first documentation of objective progressive disease according to RECIST 1·1 or death from any cause, whichever came first, by independent radiology review. Efficacy was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received one or more doses of the study drug. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04987203) and is active and not recruiting. FINDINGS: From Nov 4, 2021, to June 16, 2023, 343 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib-nivolumab (n=171) or tivozanib monotherapy (n=172). Median follow-up was 12·0 months. Median PFS was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-7·4) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 7·4 months (5·6-9·2) with tivozanib monotherapy (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·84-1·43; p=0·49). Among those with an ICI as their immediate previous therapy (n=244), median PFS was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6-9·6) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 9·2 months (7·4-10·0) with tivozanib monotherapy. With non-ICIs as the most recent therapy, lower median PFS was observed, with no difference between groups (tivozanib-nivolumab 3·7 months [95% CI 2·7-5·4] and with tivozanib monotherapy 3·7 months [1·9-7·2]). Serious adverse events occurred in 54 (32%) of 168 patients receiving tivozanib-nivolumab and 64 (37%) of 171 patients receiving tivozanib monotherapy. One (<1%) treatment-related death occurred (tivozanib group). INTERPRETATION: These data further support that ICI rechallenge should be discouraged in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, these data suggest that tivozanib monotherapy has efficacy in the post-ICI setting. FUNDING: Aveo Pharmaceuticals.

Exposure-response relationship of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated in routine care.

BACKGROUND: Interindividual pharmacokinetic variability may influence the clinical benefit or toxicity of cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We aimed to investigate the exposure-toxicity and exposure-response relationship of cabozantinib in unselected mRCC patients treated in routine care. METHODS: This ambispective multicenter study enrolled consecutive patients receiving cabozantinib in monotherapy. Steady-state trough concentration (Cmin,ss) within the first 3 months after treatment initiation was used for the PK/PD analysis with dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and survival outcomes. Logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards models were used to identify the risk factors of DLT and inefficacy in patients, respectively. RESULTS: Seventy-eight mRCC patients were eligible for the statistical analysis. Fifty-two patients (67%) experienced DLT with a median onset of 2.1 months (95%CI 0.7-8.2). In multivariate analysis, Cmin,ss was identified as an independent risk factor of DLT (OR 1.46, 95%CI [1.04-2.04]; p = 0.029). PFS and OS were not statistically associated with the starting dose (p = 0.81 and p = 0.98, respectively). In the multivariate analysis of PFS, Cmin, ss > 336 ng/mL resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.28 (95%CI, 0.10-0.77, p = 0.014). By contrast, Cmin, ss > 336 ng/mL was not statistically associated with longer OS. CONCLUSION: Early plasma drug monitoring may be useful to optimise cabozantinib treatment in mRCC patients treated in monotherapy, especially in frail patients starting at a lower than standard dose.

Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo for localised renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective adjuvant therapy for patients with resected localised renal cell carcinoma represents an unmet need, with surveillance being the standard of care. We report results from part A of a phase 3, randomised trial that aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. METHODS: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 CheckMate 914 trial enrolled patients with localised clear cell renal cell carcinoma who were at high risk of relapse after radical or partial nephrectomy between 4-12 weeks before random assignment. Part A, reported herein, was done in 145 hospitals and cancer centres across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks for 12 doses plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) intravenously every 6 weeks for four doses, or matching placebo, via an interactive response technology system. The expected treatment period was 24 weeks, and treatment could be continued until week 36, allowing for treatment delays. Randomisation was stratified by TNM stage and nephrectomy (partial vs radical). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival according to masked independent central review; safety was a secondary endpoint. Disease-free survival was analysed in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population); exposure, safety, and tolerability were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (all-treated population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138512. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2017, and March 16, 2021, 816 patients were randomly assigned to receive either adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (405 patients) or placebo (411 patients). 580 (71%) of 816 patients were male and 236 (29%) patients were female. With a median follow-up of 37·0 months (IQR 31·3-43·7), median disease-free survival was not reached in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and was 50·7 months (95% CI 48·1 to not estimable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·71-1·19; p=0·53). The number of events required for the planned overall survival interim analysis was not reached at the time of the data cutoff, and only 61 events occurred (33 in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 28 in the placebo group). 155 (38%) of 404 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 42 (10%) of 407 patients who received placebo had grade 3-5 adverse events. All-cause adverse events of any grade led to discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in 129 (32%) of 404 treated patients and of placebo in nine (2%) of 407 treated patients. Four deaths were attributed to treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and no deaths were attributed to treatment with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not improve disease-free survival versus placebo in patients with localised renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. Our study results do not support this regimen for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib monotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma after progression with previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment (CONTACT-03): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are the standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, yet optimised treatment of patients whose disease progresses after these therapies is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine whether adding atezolizumab to cabozantinib delayed disease progression and prolonged survival in patients with disease progression on or after previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. METHODS: CONTACT-03 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, done in 135 study sites in 15 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed with immune checkpoint inhibitors were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus cabozantinib (60 mg orally once daily) or cabozantinib alone. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-response or web-response system in permuted blocks (block size four) and stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group, line of previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and renal cell carcinoma histology. The two primary endpoints were progression-free survival per blinded independent central review and overall survival. The primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04338269, and is closed to further accrual. FINDINGS: From July 28, 2020, to Dec 27, 2021, 692 patients were screened for eligibility, 522 of whom were assigned to receive atezolizumab-cabozantinib (263 patients) or cabozantinib (259 patients). 401 (77%) patients were male and 121 (23%) patients were female. At data cutoff (Jan 3, 2023), median follow-up was 15·2 months (IQR 10·7-19·3). 171 (65%) patients receiving atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 166 (64%) patients receiving cabozantinib had disease progression per central review or died. Median progression-free survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·8-12·3) with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 10·8 months (10·0-12·5) with cabozantinib (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death 1·03 [95% CI 0·83-1·28]; p=0·78). 89 (34%) patients in the atezolizumab-cabozantinib group and 87 (34%) in the cabozantinib group died. Median overall survival was 25·7 months (95% CI 21·5-not evaluable) with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and was not evaluable (21·1-not evaluable) with cabozantinib (HR for death 0·94 [95% CI 0·70-1·27]; p=0·69). Serious adverse events occurred in 126 (48%) of 262 patients treated with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 84 (33%) of 256 patients treated with cabozantinib; adverse events leading to death occurred in 17 (6%) patients in the atezolizumab-cabozantinib group and nine (4%) in the cabozantinib group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of atezolizumab to cabozantinib did not improve clinical outcomes and led to increased toxicity. These results should discourage sequential use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with renal cell carcinoma outside of clinical trials. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Exelixis.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-B61): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy-based combinations including pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib are the standard of care for patients with first-line clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, but these combinations are not well characterised in non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: KEYNOTE-B61 is a single-arm, phase 2 trial being conducted at 48 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, South Korea, Russia, Spain, Türkiye, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated stage IV non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher were eligible for enrolment. All enrolled patients received pembrolizumab 400 mg intravenously every 6 weeks for up to 18 cycles (2 years) plus lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal; lenvatinib could be continued beyond 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response as per adjusted Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) assessed by independent central review. Activity and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment (the as-treated population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04704219) and is no longer recruiting participants but is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2021, and Jan 21, 2022, 215 patients were screened; 158 were enrolled and received treatment. Median age at baseline was 60 years (IQR 52-69), 112 (71%) of 158 patients were male, 46 (29%) were female, 128 (81%) were White, 12 (8%) were Asian, three (2%) were Black or African American, and 15 (9%) were missing data on race. As of data cutoff (Nov 7, 2022), median study follow-up was 14·9 months (IQR 11·1-17·4). 78 of 158 patients had a confirmed objective response (49%; 95% CI 41-57), including nine (6%) patients with a confirmed complete response and 69 (44%) with a confirmed partial response. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 81 (51%) of 158 patients, the most common of which were hypertension (37 [23%] of 158), proteinuria (seven [4%]), and stomatitis (six [4%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 31 (20%) of 158 patients. Eight (5%) patients died due to adverse events, none of which was considered related to the treatment by the investigators (one each of cardiac failure, peritonitis, pneumonia, sepsis, cerebrovascular accident, suicide, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has durable antitumour activity in patients with previously untreated advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that of previous studies. Results from KEYNOTE-B61 support the use of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for these patients. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme (a subsidiary of Merck & Co, NJ, USA), and Eisai.

Tailored immunotherapy approach with nivolumab with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab as immunotherapeutic boost in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (TITAN-RCC): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is approved as first-line regimen for intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and nivolumab monotherapy as second-line therapy for all risk groups. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination as an immunotherapeutic boost after no response to nivolumab monotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk and poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: TITAN-RCC is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, done at 28 hospitals and cancer centres across Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk or poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were formerly untreated (first-line population) or pretreated with one previous systemic therapy (anti-angiogenic or temsirolimus; second-line population) were eligible. Patients had to have a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70 and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). Patients started with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks. On early progressive disease (week 8) or non-response at week 16, patients received two or four doses of intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) boosts (once every 3 weeks), whereas responders continued with intravenous nivolumab (240 mg, once every 2 weeks), but could receive two to four boost doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for subsequent progressive disease. The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study medication; safety was also assessed in this population. An objective response rate of more than 25% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show improvement, on the basis of results from the pivotal phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02917772, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 28, 2016, and Nov 30, 2018, 207 patients were enrolled and all received nivolumab induction (109 patients in the first-line group; 98 patients in the second-line group). 60 (29%) of 207 patients were female and 147 (71%) were male. 147 (71%) of 207 patients had intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma and 51 (25%) had poor-risk disease. After median follow-up of 27·6 months (IQR 10·5-34·8), 39 (36%, 90% CI 28-44; p=0·0080) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 31 (32%, 24-40; p=0·083) of 98 patients in the second-line group had a confirmed objective response for nivolumab with and without nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Confirmed response to nivolumab at week 8 or 16 was observed in 31 (28%) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 18 (18%) of 98 patients in the second-line group. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (reported in ≥5% of patients) were increased lipase (15 [7%] of 207 patients), colitis (13 [6%]), and diarrhoea (13 [6%]). Three deaths were reported that were deemed to be treatment-related: one due to possible ischaemic stroke, one due to respiratory failure, and one due to pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: In treatment-naive patients, nivolumab induction with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts significantly improved the objective response rate compared with that reported for nivolumab monotherapy in the CheckMate-025 trial. However, overall efficacy seemed inferior when compared with approved upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For second-line treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab could be a rescue strategy on progression with approved nivolumab monotherapy. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Adjuvant atezolizumab versus placebo for patients with renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence following resection (IMmotion010): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for locoregional renal cell carcinoma is surgery, but many patients experience recurrence. The objective of the current study was to determine if adjuvant atezolizumab (vs placebo) delayed recurrence in patients with an increased risk of recurrence after resection. METHODS: IMmotion010 is a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial conducted in 215 centres in 28 countries. Eligible patients were patients aged 18 years or older with renal cell carcinoma with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component and increased risk of recurrence. After nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo (both intravenous) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice-web response system. Stratification factors were disease stage (T2 or T3a vs T3b-c or T4 or N+ vs M1 no evidence of disease), geographical region (north America [excluding Mexico] vs rest of the world), and PD-L1 status on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (<1% vs ≥1% expression). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who were randomised, regardless of whether study treatment was received. The safety-evaluable population included all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received any amount of study drug (ie, atezolizumab or placebo), regardless of whether a full or partial dose was received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03024996, and is closed to further accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 3, 2017, and Feb 15, 2019, 778 patients were enrolled; 390 (50%) were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 388 (50%) to the placebo group. At data cutoff (May 3, 2022), the median follow-up duration was 44·7 months (IQR 39·1-51·0). Median investigator-assessed disease-free survival was 57·2 months (95% CI 44·6 to not evaluable) with atezolizumab and 49·5 months (47·4 to not evaluable) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·93, 95% CI 0·75-1·15, p=0·50). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (seven [2%] patients who received atezolizumab vs 15 [4%] patients who received placebo), hyperglycaemia (ten [3%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (two [1%] vs seven [2%]). 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo had a serious adverse event. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy after resection for patients with renal cell carcinoma with increased risk of recurrence showed no evidence of improved clinical outcomes versus placebo. These study results do not support adjuvant atezolizumab for treatment of renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, a member of the Roche group.

Immune Checkpoint Therapy Combinations in Adult Advanced MiT Family Translocation Renal Cell Carcinomas.

BACKGROUND: There remains a paucity of data regarding the efficacy of immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) combinations ± vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy (TT) in translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC). METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients with advanced tRCC treated with ICT combinations at 11 centers in the US, France, and Belgium. Only cases with confirmed fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were included. Objective response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed by RECIST, and overall survival (OS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: There were 29 patients identified with median age of 38 (21-70) years, and F:M ratio 0.9:1. FISH revealed TFE3 and TFEB translocations in 22 and 7 patients, respectively. Dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT were used in 18 and 11 patients, respectively. Seventeen (59%) patients received ICT combinations as first-line therapy. ORR was 1/18 (5.5%) for dual ICT and 4/11 (36%) for ICT + VEGF TT. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, median PFS was 2.8 and 5.4 months in the dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT groups, respectively. Median OS from metastatic disease was 17.8 and 30.7 months in the dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study of advanced tRCC, limited response and survival were seen after frontline dual ICT combination therapy, while ICT + VEGF TT therapy offered some efficacy. Due to the heterogeneity of tRCC, insights into the biological underpinnings are necessary to develop more effective therapies.

Patients' Perceptions Regarding the Relevance of Items Contained in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal method of assessing health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This study explored the perceived relevance of items that make up the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), as judged by patients with mRCC. METHODS: This was a multinational cross-sectional survey. Eligible patients responded to a questionnaire composed of 18 items that assessed the perceived relevance of each item in the FKSI-19 questionnaire. Open-ended questions assessed additional issues deemed relevant by patients. Responses were grouped as relevant (scores 2-5) or nonrelevant (score 1). Descriptive statistics were collated, and open-ended questions were analyzed and categorized into descriptive categories. Spearman correlation statistics were used to test the association between relevance and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients were included (gender: 78.1 M, 21.9F; median age: 64; treatment: 38.4 immunotherapy, 29.8 targeted therapy, 13.9 immuno-TKI combination therapy) in the study. The most relevant questions evaluated fatigue (77.5), lack of energy (72.2), and worry that their condition will get worse (71.5). Most patients rated blood in urine (15.2), fevers (16.6), and lack of appetite (23.2) as least relevant. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions revealed several themes, including emotional and physical symptoms, ability to live independently, effectiveness of treatment, family, spirituality, and financial toxicity. CONCLUSION: There is a need to refine widely used HR-QOL measures that are employed among patients diagnosed with mRCC treated with contemporary therapies. Guidance was provided for the inclusion of more relevant items to patients' cancer journey.

BR55 Ultrasound Molecular Imaging of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Reflects Tumor Vascular Expression of VEGFR-2 in a Patient-Derived Xenograft Model.

Standard imaging cannot reliably predict the nature of renal tumors. Among malignant renal tumors, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common histological subtype, in which the vascular endothelial growth factor 2 (VEGFR-2) is highly expressed in the vascular endothelium. BR55, a contrast agent for ultrasound imaging, consists of gas-core lipid microbubbles that specifically target and bind to the extracellular portion of the VEGFR-2. The specific information provided by ultrasound molecular imaging (USMI) using BR55 was compared with the vascular tumor expression of the VEGFR-2 by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining in a preclinical model of ccRCC. Patients' ccRCCs were orthotopically grafted onto Nod-Scid-Gamma (NSG) mice to generate patient-derived xenografts (PdX). Mice were divided into four groups to receive either vehicle or axitinib an amount of 2, 7.5 or 15 mg/kg twice daily. Perfusion parameters and the BR55 ultrasound contrast signal on PdX renal tumors were analyzed at D0, D1, D3, D7 and D11, and compared with IHC staining for the VEGFR-2 and CD34. Significant Pearson correlation coefficients were observed between the area under the curve (AUC) and the CD34 (0.84, p < 10-4), and between the VEGFR-2-specific signal obtained by USMI and IHC (0.72, p < 10-4). USMI with BR55 could provide instant, quantitative information on tumor VEGFR-2 expression to characterize renal masses non-invasively.

Efficacy of Cabozantinib in Metastatic MiT Family Translocation Renal Cell Carcinomas.

BACKGROUND: MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (TRCC) is a rare and aggressive subgroup of renal cell carcinoma harboring high expression of c-MET. While TRCC response rates to VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors are limited, efficacy of cabozantinib (a VEGFR, MET, and AXL inhibitor) in this subgroup is unclear. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective, international cohort study of patients with TRCC treated with cabozantinib. The main objectives were to estimate response rate according to RECIST 1.1 and to analyze progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with metastatic TRCC treated in the participating centers and evaluable for response were included. Median age at metastatic diagnosis was 40 years (IQR 28.5-53). Patients' IMDC risk groups at diagnosis were favorable (9/52), intermediate (35/52), and poor (8/52). Eleven (21.2%) patients received cabozantinib as frontline therapy, 15 (28.8%) at second line, and 26 (50%) at third line and beyond. The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 17.3%, including 2 complete responses and 7 partial responses. For 26 (50%) patients, stable disease was the best response. With a median follow-up of 25.1 months (IQR 12.6-39), median PFS was 6.8 months (95%CI 4.6-16.3) and median OS was 18.3 months (95%CI 17.0-30.6). No difference of response was identified according to fusion transcript features. CONCLUSION: This real-world study provides evidence of the activity of cabozantinib in TRCC, with more durable responses than those observed historically with other VEGFR-TKIs or ICIs.

Avelumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).

Analysis by region of outcomes for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with cabozantinib or everolimus: a sub-analysis of the METEOR study.

INTRODUCTION: METEOR was a phase 3 trial (NCT01865747) of cabozantinib versus everolimus in adults with advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC previously treated with VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This post hoc analysis of METEOR compared outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adults with advanced/metastatic clear cell RCC who had received ≥ 1 prior VEGFR-TKI treatment were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. Patients were categorized by recruitment region: Europe or outside of Europe (rest of world [RoW]). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were compared between regional subgroups. RESULTS: In total, there were 320 eligible patients from Europe (cabozantinib, 167; everolimus, 153) and 338 from RoW (North America, 240 patients; Asia-Pacific, 86; Latin America, 12; randomized as cabozantinib, 163; everolimus, 175). PFS and OS were longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus and similar for the Europe and RoW subgroups. For PFS, the hazard ratio (HR) for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 0.54 for the Europe subgroup (p < .001) and 0.50 for the RoW subgroup (p < .001). For OS, the HR was 0.75 for the Europe subgroup (p = .034) and 0.69 for the RoW subgroup (p = .006). ORR in the Europe subgroup was 15% for cabozantinib and 3.9% for everolimus (p < .001). For the RoW subgroup, ORR was 20% for cabozantinib and 2.9% for everolimus (p < .001). Incidence of grade 3/4 AEs were similar for the Europe (cabozantinib, 74%; everolimus, 58%) and RoW subgroups (cabozantinib, 69%; everolimus, 64%). CONCLUSION: In the METEOR trial, efficacy outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries favored cabozantinib over everolimus. The efficacy and safety results for the regional subgroups were consistent with those of the overall METEOR population.

CaboPoint: a phase II study of cabozantinib as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Cabozantinib is an inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinases, including AXL, MET and VEGF receptors. Here, we describe the rationale and design for the phase II CaboPoint trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03945773), which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib as a second-line treatment in patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease has progressed despite checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Patients will be recruited into two cohorts: prior ipilimumab plus nivolumab (cohort A) or prior checkpoint inhibitor-VEGF-targeted therapy (cohort B). All patients will receive once-daily oral cabozantinib 60 mg for up to 18 months. The primary end point is objective response rate. Secondary end points include overall survival, progression-free survival and safety.

Most patients diagnosed with kidney cancer have a type of tumor called renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Most cases of RCC are described as 'clear cell' because the tumor cells appear clear when viewed under a microscope. Cabozantinib is an oral treatment approved for use in some patients with advanced RCC, including those with clear cell disease. Cabozantinib slows RCC progression by targeting pathways that help tumors grow, including inhibition of VEGF. The ongoing CaboPoint study will assess the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with clear cell RCC that has progressed despite previous anticancer treatment involving an immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). CPI therapy helps the body to detect tumors and to launch its own anticancer response. Patients included in CaboPoint must be adults with clear cell RCC that is not suitable for surgery and has either spread within the kidney or to other organs, despite previous CPI-based therapy. In total, 250 patients will be recruited: 125 who received previous combination CPI treatment (ipilimumab plus nivolumab; group A) and 125 who received previous CPI treatment plus anti-VEGF therapy (group B). Patients will start cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg/day and continue treatment for up to 18 months. The main outcome to be studied will be the number of patients with a reduction in tumor size (objective response rate). The length of time patients live with their disease, the effect of treatment on symptoms and patient safety will also be evaluated. Clinical trial registration: NCT03945773 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Safety of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with advanced solid tumors receiving anti-VEGF agents: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Kinase inhibitors (KI) and antibodies targeting the VEGF pathway are approved in a broad spectrum of cancers and associated with an increased risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events (TE). The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban and rivaroxaban is increasing in cancer patients, but limited data are available for patients receiving anti-VEGF agents. METHODS: To assess safety of DOAC with concomitant anti-VEGF agents, a retrospective chart review of all patients receiving concomitantly DOAC and anti-VEGF agents was performed from 2013 to 2020 in our center. Data on demographics, safety, and time on treatment were collected. Main outcome was safety (bleeding and thromboembolic events). RESULTS: Of 92 patients (median age 66 years (IQR: 59-72)), 40 were treated with KI and 52 with bevacizumab. The most frequent primary tumor sites were colon/rectum (24%), kidney (21%), ovary (13%), lung (11%), soft tissue sarcoma (10%), and thyroid (9%); 2% had brain metastases. Apixaban 5 mg bid (n = 41) or rivaroxaban 20 mg daily (n = 51) were given for TE (65%), atrial fibrillation (32%), or other indications (3%). The median duration of concomitant treatment was 4.8 months (95%CI: 0.7-50.0) with bevacizumab and 11.7 months (95%CI: 0.1-53.8) with KI. Grade ≥ 3 bleeding events occurred in 5 patients (5%): 4 patients receiving bevacizumab (one grade 5 upper digestive tract bleeding and three grade 3 rectal or vaginal hemorrhages) and 1 patient under cabozantinib for kidney cancer with endobronchial metastasis (grade 3 hemoptysis). Grade ≥ 3 TE occurred in 8 patients (9%): 7 patients receiving bevacizumab (including one grade 5 pulmonary embolism), and one patient receiving sunitinib (grade 3 pulmonary embolism). Median time-to-event (bleeding or thrombotic event) was not reached (NR) (95%CI: 76.9-NR) for KI and 86.9 months (95%CI: 42.9-148.0) for bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In our experience, the use of DOAC was safe in selected patients treated with KI, but unclear with bevacizumab. More data are needed to endorse guidelines in this specific group of patients.

The Effect of Concomitant Proton Pump Inhibitor and Cabozantinib on the Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Cabozantinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Cabozantinib is a weak base that exhibits a pH-dependent solubility profile in vitro which raises concerns about its bioavailability in patients treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether PPI use has an impact on the efficacy, safety, and residual concentration (Ctrough) of cabozantinib in patients with mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected electronic database of patients with mRCC who received cabozantinib at Gustave Roussy between February 2014 and December 2018. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis and the Cox proportional-hazard model for uni- and multivariate analysis. In parallel, we conducted a pharmacokinetic study of cabozantinib in a distinct cohort of 50 mRCC patients, in which cabozantinib Ctrough was assayed using a validated tandem mass spectrometry-liquid chromatography method. RESULTS: We identified 99 patients treated with cabozantinib, including 43 patients being PPI users. With a median follow-up of 30.3 months, PPI users showed similar progression-free survival and overall survival outcomes compared with PPI nonusers. Similarly, the incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the PPI users and nonusers, although PPI users required dose reductions more often. In the independent pharmacokinetic cohort, of whom 21 received PPI concomitantly, Ctrough was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In line with the pharmacologic data, the concomitant use of PPI does not significantly impact the efficacy or safety of cabozantinib in patients with mRCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Drug interactions, especially between targeted therapies and proton pump inhibitors (PPI), were shown to potentially impact the outcomes of cancer patients. Cabozantinib, a current therapeutic standard in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), exhibits a pH-dependent solubility profile, which raises concerns about its bioavailability in patients treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPI). At the present time, there is no evidence regarding the effect of PPIs on cabozantinib's efficacy and safety in patients with mRCC. This study found that the concomitant use of PPI during cabozantinib treatment in mRCC patients does not appear to impact the residual concentration, efficacy, and safety of cabozantinib in a real-life context.

Sunitinib Alone or after Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy has been the standard of care in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma for 20 years, supported by randomized trials and large, retrospective studies. However, the efficacy of targeted therapies has challenged this standard. We assessed the role of nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were receiving targeted therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with confirmed metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at presentation who were suitable candidates for nephrectomy to undergo nephrectomy and then receive sunitinib (standard therapy) or to receive sunitinib alone. Randomization was stratified according to prognostic risk (intermediate or poor) in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily in cycles of 28 days on and 14 days off every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were enrolled from September 2009 to September 2017. At this planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was 50.9 months, with 326 deaths observed. The results in the sunitinib-alone group were noninferior to those in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group with regard to overall survival (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.10; upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for noninferiority, ≤1.20). The median overall survival was 18.4 months in the sunitinib-alone group and 13.9 months in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group. No significant differences in response rate or progression-free survival were observed. Adverse events were as anticipated in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib alone was not inferior to nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were classified as having intermediate-risk or poor-risk disease. (Funded by Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and others; CARMENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930033 .).