Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 8-year follow-up results of efficacy and safety from the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab+ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and durable response benefits versus sunitinib (SUN) with long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated analyses with 8 years median follow-up from CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with aRCC (N=1096) were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × four doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. Endpoints included OS, and independent radiology review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) patients. RESULTS: With 8 years (99.1 months) median follow-up, the HR (95% CI) for OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.72 (0.62-0.83) in ITT patients, 0.69 (0.59-0.81) in I/P patients, and 0.82 (0.60-1.13) in FAV patients. PFS probabilities at 90 months were 22.8% versus 10.8% (ITT), 25.4% versus 8.5% (I/P), and 12.7% versus 17.0% (FAV), respectively. ORR with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 39.5% versus 33.0% (ITT), 42.4% versus 27.5% (I/P), and 29.6% versus 51.6% (FAV). Rates of complete response were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN in all IMDC risk groups (ITT, 12.0% versus 3.5%; I/P, 11.8% versus 2.6%; FAV, 12.8% versus 6.5%). Median duration of response (95% CI) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 76.2 versus 25.1 months [59.1-not estimable (NE) versus 19.8-33.2; ITT], 82.8 versus 19.8 months [54.1-NE versus 16.4-26.4; I/P], and 61.5 versus 33.2 months [27.8-NE versus 24.8-51.4; FAV]). Incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. Exploratory post hoc analyses are reported for FAV patients, those receiving subsequent therapy based on their response status, clinical subpopulations, and adverse events over time. CONCLUSIONS: Superior survival, durable response benefits, and a manageable safety profile were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 8 years, the longest phase III follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in aRCC.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2022-2024: management of kidney cancer.

AIM: To update the recommendations for the management of kidney cancers. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted from 2015 to 2022. The most relevant articles on the diagnosis, classification, surgical treatment, medical treatment and follow-up of kidney cancer were selected and incorporated into the recommendations. Therefore, the recommendations were updated while specifying the level of evidence (high or low). RESULTS: The gold standard for the diagnosis and evaluation of kidney cancer is contrast-enhanced chest and abdominal CT. MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound are indicated in special cases. Percutaneous biopsy is recommended in situations where the results will influence the therapeutic decision. Renal tumours should be classified according to the pTNM 2017 classification, the WHO 2022 classification and the ISUP nucleolar grade. Metastatic kidney cancer should be classified according to the IMDC criteria. Partial nephrectomy is the gold standard treatment for T1a tumours and can be performed by an open approach, by laparoscopy or by robot-guidance. Active surveillance of tumours less than 2cm in size can be considered regardless of the patient's age. Ablative therapies and active surveillance are options in elderly patients with comorbidity. T1b tumours should be treated by partial or radical nephrectomy depending on the complexity of the tumour. Radical nephrectomy is the first-line treatment for locally advanced cancers. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab should be considered in patients at intermediate and high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy. In metastatic patients: Immediate cytoreductive nephrectomy may be offered to oligometastatic patients in combination with local treatment of metastases if this can be complete and delayed cytoreductive nephrectomy can be proposed for patients with a complete response or a significant partial response. Medical treatment should be proposed as first-line therapy for patients with a poor or intermediate prognosis. Surgical or local treatment of metastases can be proposed in case of single or oligo-metastases. The recommended first-line drugs for metastatic patients with clear cell renal carcinoma are the combinations axitinib/pembrolizumab, nivolumab/ipililumab, nivolumab/cabozantinib and lenvatinib/pembrolizumab. Cabozantinib is the recommended first-line treatment for patients with metastatic papillary carcinoma. Cystic tumours should be classified according to the Bosniak classification. Surgical removal should be proposed as a priority for Bosniak III and IV lesions. It is recommended that patient monitoring be adapted to the aggressiveness of the tumour. CONCLUSION: These updated recommendations are a reference that will allow French and French-speaking practitioners to improve kidney cancer management.

TiNivo: safety and efficacy of tivozanib-nivolumab combination therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with tivozanib, a highly selective and potent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated single-agent efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) along with minimal off-target toxicities and a favorable adverse event (AE) profile. We report final results from TiNivo, a phase Ib/II study of tivozanib combined with nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In phase Ib, patients with metastatic RCC received tivozanib 1.0 mg once daily (QD) for 21 days followed by 7 days off treatment (n = 3) or tivozanib 1.5 mg QD (n = 3) plus nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be tivozanib 1.5 mg, and 22 additional patients were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose for phase II. Primary end points included safety and tolerability, with secondary end points of objective response rate, disease control rate, and progression-free survival. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were treated with tivozanib 1.5 mg QD [12 (48%) treatment-naïve; 13 (52%) previously treated]. Treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 20 patients (80%); 4 patients (17%) experienced AEs that led to dose reduction, and 8 (32%) discontinued due to AEs. The objective response rate was 56% (including one complete response) and disease control rate was 96%, with a median time to best response of 7.9 weeks. Twenty patients (80%) had tumor shrinkage. With a median follow-up of 19.0 months (range, 12.6-22.8), median progression-free survival was 18.9 months (95% confidence interval 16.4-not reached) in all patients and was similar in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib plus nivolumab combination therapy showed a generally tolerable AE profile and promising antitumor efficacy. These results support further development of tivozanib combined with nivolumab as a treatment option in patients with treatment-naïve or previously treated metastatic RCC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03136627.

Updated efficacy results from the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial: first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated efficacy data from the second interim analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with aRCC were randomized (1 : 1) to receive avelumab (10 mg/kg) 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 PFS and overall survival (OS) among patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) tumors. Key secondary end points were OS and PFS in the overall population. RESULTS: Of 886 patients, 442 were randomized to the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 444 to the sunitinib arm; 270 and 290 had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months (data cut-off 28 January 2019), PFS was significantly longer in the avelumab plus axitinib arm than in the sunitinib arm {PD-L1+ population: hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.490-0.777]}; one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.8 (95% CI 10.1-20.7) versus 7.0 months (95% CI 5.7-9.6); overall population: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.574-0.825); one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.3 (95% CI 11.1-15.3) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 6.7-9.8)]. OS data were immature [PD-L1+ population: HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.596-1.151); one-sided P = 0.1301; overall population: HR 0.796 (95% CI 0.616-1.027); one-sided P = 0.0392]. CONCLUSION: Among patients with previously untreated aRCC, treatment with avelumab plus axitinib continued to result in a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus sunitinib; OS data were still immature. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02684006.

[French ccAFU guidelines - update 2020-2022: management of kidney cancer]. / Recommandations françaises du Comité de cancérologie de l'AFU ­ actualisation 2020­2022 : prise en charge du cancer du rein.

OBJECTIVE: - To update the French guidelines on kidney cancer. METHODS: - A systematic review of the literature between 2015 and 2020 was performed. The most relevant articles regarding the diagnosis, the classification, surgical treatment, medical treatment and follow-up of kidney cancer were retrieved and included in the new guidelines. The guidelines were updated with corresponding levels of evidence. RESULTS: - Thoraco-abdominal CT scan with injection is the best radiological exam for the diagnosis of kidney cancer. MRI and contrast ultra-sound can be useful in some cases. Percutaneous biopsy is recommended when histological results will affect clinical decision. Renal tumours must be classified according to pTNM 2017 classification and ISUP grade. Metastatic kidney cancers must be classified according to IMDC criteria. Partial nephrectomy is the recommended treatment for T1a tumours and can be done through an open, laparoscopic or robotic access. T1b tumours can be treated by partial or total nephrectomy according to tumour complexity. Radical nephrectomy is the recommended treatment of advanced localized tumours. There is no recommended adjuvant treatment. In metastatic patients: cyto-reductive nephrectomy can be offered in case of good prognosis; medical treatment must be counseled first in case of intermediate or bad prognosis. Surgical or local treatment of metastases should be considered in case of solitary lesion or oligo-metastases. First line recommended drugs in metastatic patients include the associations axitinib/pembrolizumab and nivolumab/ipilimumab. Cystic tumours must be classified according to Bosniak Classification. Surgical excision should be offered to patients with Bosniak III and IV lesions. It is recommended to follow patients clinically and with imaging according to tumour aggressiveness. CONCLUSION: - These updated recommendations should assist French speaking urologists for their management of kidney cancers.

Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: The composition of gut microbiota affects antitumor immune responses, preclinical and clinical outcome following immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in cancer. Antibiotics (ATB) alter gut microbiota diversity and composition leading to dysbiosis, which may affect effectiveness of ICI. Patients and methods: We examined patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 mAb monotherapy or combination at two academic institutions. Those receiving ATB within 30 days of beginning ICI were compared with those who did not. Objective response, progression-free survival (PFS) determined by RECIST1.1 and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: Sixteen of 121 (13%) RCC patients and 48 of 239 (20%) NSCLC patients received ATB. The most common ATB were ß-lactam or quinolones for pneumonia or urinary tract infections. In RCC patients, ATB compared with no ATB was associated with increased risk of primary progressive disease (PD) (75% versus 22%, P < 0.01), shorter PFS [median 1.9 versus 7.4 months, hazard ratio (HR) 3.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-6.9, P < 0.01], and shorter OS (median 17.3 versus 30.6 months, HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.1-10.8, P = 0.03). In NSCLC patients, ATB was associated with similar rates of primary PD (52% versus 43%, P = 0.26) but decreased PFS (median 1.9 versus 3.8 months, HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2, P = 0.03) and OS (median 7.9 versus 24.6 months, HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.6-7.7, P < 0.01). In multivariate analyses, the impact of ATB remained significant for PFS in RCC and for OS in NSCLC. Conclusion: ATB were associated with reduced clinical benefit from ICI in RCC and NSCLC. Modulatation of ATB-related dysbiosis and gut microbiota composition may be a strategy to improve clinical outcomes with ICI.

Activity and safety of crizotinib in patients with alveolar soft part sarcoma with rearrangement of TFE3: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) phase II trial 90101 'CREATE'.

Background: Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is an orphan malignancy associated with a rearrangement of transcription factor E3 (TFE3), leading to abnormal MET gene expression. We prospectively assessed the efficacy and safety of the MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor crizotinib in patients with advanced or metastatic ASPS. Patients and methods: Eligible patients with reference pathology-confirmed ASPS received oral crizotinib 250 mg bd. By assessing the presence or absence of a TFE3 rearrangement, patients were attributed to MET+ and MET- sub-cohorts. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR) according to local investigator. Secondary end points included duration of response, disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), progression-free rate, overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: Among 53 consenting patients, all had a centrally confirmed ASPS and 48 were treated. A total of 45 were eligible, treated and assessable. Among 40 MET+ patients, 1 achieved a confirmed partial response (PR) that lasted 215 days and 35 had stable disease (SD) as best response (ORR: 2.5%, 95% CI 0.6% to 80.6%). Further efficacy end points in MET+ cases were DCR: 90.0% (95% CI 76.3% to 97.2%), 1-year PFS rate: 37.5% (95% CI 22.9% to 52.1%) and 1-year OS rate: 97.4% (95% CI 82.8% to 99.6%). Among 4 MET- patients, 1 achieved a PR that lasted 801 days and 3 had SD (ORR: 25.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 80.6%) for a DCR of 100% (95% CI 39.8% to 100.0%). The 1-year PFS rate in MET- cases was 50% (95% CI 5.8% to 84.5%) and the 1-year OS rate was 75% (95% CI 12.8% to 96.1%). One patient with unknown MET status due to technical failure achieved SD but stopped treatment due to progression after 17 cycles. The most common crizotinib-related adverse events were nausea [34/48 (70.8%)], vomiting [22/48 (45.8%)], blurred vision [22/48 (45.8%)], diarrhoea (20/48 (41.7%)] and fatigue [19/48 (39.6%)]. Conclusion: According to European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) efficacy criteria for soft tissue sarcoma, our study demonstrated that crizotinib has activity in TFE3 rearranged ASPS MET+ patients. Clinical trial number: EORTC 90101, NCT01524926.

[French ccAFU guidelines - Update 2018-2020: Management of kidney cancer]. / Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l'AFU ­ Actualisation 2018­2020 : prise en charge du cancer du rein.

OBJECTIVE: To update the French guidelines on kidney cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature between 2015 and 2018 was performed. The most relevant articles regarding the diagnosis, the classification, surgical treatment, medical treatment and follow-up of kidney cancer were retrieved and included in the new guidelines. The guidelines were updated with corresponding levels of evidence. RESULTS: Thoraco-abdominal CT scan with injection is the best radiological exam for the diagnosis of kidney cancer. MRI and contrast ultrasound can be useful in some cases. Percutaneous biopsy is recommended when histological results will affect clinical decision. Renal tumours must be classified according to pTNM 2017 classification and ISUP grade. Metastatic kidney cancers must be classified according to IMDC criteria. Partial nephrectomy is the recommended treatment for T1a tumours and can be done through an open, laparoscopic or robotic access. T1b tumours can be treated by partial or total nephrectomy according to tumour complexity. Radical nephrectomy is the recommended treatment of advanced localized tumours. In metastatic patients: cytoreductive nephrectomy is recommended in case of good prognosis; medical treatment must be offered first in case of intermediate or bad prognosis. Surgical or local treatment of metastases should be considered in case of solitary lesion or oligo-metastases. First-line recommended drugs in metastatic patients include sunitinib, pazopanib, and the association nivolumab/ipilimumab. Cabozantinib can be offered in option in intermediate and bad prognostic patients. Cystic tumours must be classified according to Bosniak Classification. Surgical excision should be offered to patients with Bosniak III and IV lesions. It is recommended to follow patients clinically and with imaging according to tumour aggressiveness. CONCLUSION: These updated recommendations should assist French speaking urologists for their management of kidney cancers.

RETRACTED: Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l'AFU ­ Actualisation 2018­2020 : prise en charge du cancer du reinFrench ccAFU guidelines ­ Update 2018­2020: Management of kidney cancer / Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l'AFU ­ Actualisation 2018­2020 : prise en charge du cancer du rein.

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Cet article est retiré de la publication à la demande des auteurs car ils ont apporté des modifications significatives sur des points scientifiques après la publication de la première version des recommandations. Le nouvel article est disponible à cette adresse: DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.004. C'est cette nouvelle version qui doit être utilisée pour citer l'article. This article has been retracted at the request of the authors, as it is not based on the definitive version of the text because some scientific data has been corrected since the first issue was published. The replacement has been published at the DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.004. That newer version of the text should be used when citing the article.

Phase I/II trial of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing after docetaxel and abiraterone.

Background: Abiraterone and cabazitaxel improve survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We conducted an open-label phase I/II trial of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone to assess the antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with progressive mCRPC after docetaxel (phase I), and after docetaxel and abiraterone (phase II) (NCT01511536). Patients and methods: The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone (phase I), and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response defined as a ≥ 50% decrease confirmed ≥3 weeks later with this combination (phase II). Results: Ten patients were enrolled in the phase I component; nine were evaluable. No DLTs were identified. The MTD was established as the approved doses for both drugs (cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and abiraterone 1000 mg once daily). Daily abiraterone treatment did not impact on cabazitaxel clearance. Twenty-seven patients received cabazitaxel plus abiraterone plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) in phase II. The median number of cycles administered (cabazitaxel) was seven (range: 1-28). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events included asthenia (in 5 patients; 14%), neutropenia (in 5 patients; 14%) and diarrhea (in 3 patients; 8%). Nine patients (24%) required dose reductions of cabazitaxel. Of 26 evaluable patients, 12 achieved a PSA response [46%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 26.6-66.6%]. Median PSA-progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI: 4.1-10.3 months). Of 14 patients with measurable disease at baseline, 3 (21%) achieved a partial response per response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. Conclusions: The combination of cabazitaxel and abiraterone has a manageable safety profile and shows antitumor activity in patients previously treated with docetaxel and abiraterone.

Reassessing the clinical spectrum associated with hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome in French FH mutation carriers.

We addressed uncertainties regarding hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC) by exploring all French cases, representing the largest series to date. Fumarate hydratase (FH) germline testing was performed with Sanger sequencing and qPCR/MLPA. Enzyme activity was measured when necessary. We carried out whenever possible a pathology review of RCC and S-(2-succino)-cysteine (2SC)/fumarate hydratase immunohistochemistry. We estimated survival using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier. There were 182 cases from 114 families. Thirty-seven RCC were diagnosed in 34 carriers (19%) at a median age of 40. Among the 23 RCC with pathology review, 13 were papillary type 2. There were 4 papillary RCC of unspecified type, 3 unclassified, 2 tubulocystic, and 1 collecting duct (CD) RCC, all 2SC+ and most (8/10) FH-. Of the remaining 14, papillary type 2, papillary unspecified, CD, and clear cell histologies were reported. The vast majority of RCC (82%) were metastatic at diagnosis or rapidly became metastatic. Median survival for metastatic disease was 18 months (95%CI: 11-29). 133 cases (73%) had a history of cutaneous leiomyomas, 3 developed skin leiomyosarcoma. Uterine leiomyomas were frequent in women (77%), but no sarcomas were observed. Only 2 cases had pheochromocytomas/paraganglioma. CONCLUSION: Our findings have direct implications regarding the identification and management of HLRCC patients.

Vinflunine-gemcitabine versus vinflunine-carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in cisplatin-unfit patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: results of an international randomized phase II trial (JASINT1).

BACKGROUND: There is no standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) in cisplatin-ineligible (cisplatin-unfit) patients. The study assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of two vinflunine-based cytotoxic regimens in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with aUC a creatinine clearance (CrCl) of <60 but ≥30 ml/min, performance status 0 or 1 and no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomized (1 : 1). They received vinflunine 250 or 280 mg/m(2) (based on baseline CrCl) on day 1, plus either gemcitabine [750 mg/m(2) escalated to 1000 mg/m(2) in cycle 2 if no toxicity grade (G) ≥2 on days 1 and 8 (VG) or plus carboplatin area under the curve 4.5 day 1 (VC) every 21 days]. To detect a 22% improvement in each arm compared with H0 (41%) in the primary end point, disease control rate (DCR = complete response + partial response + stable disease), 31 assessable patients per arm were required (α = 5%, ß = 20%). RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were enrolled (34 VG, 35 VC). Less G3/4 haematological adverse events (AEs) were reported with VG: neutropaenia was seen in 38% (versus 68% with VC) and febrile neutropaenia in 3% (versus 14% with VC) of patients. No major differences were observed for non-haematological AEs. DCR was 77% in both groups; overall response rate (ORR) was 44.1% versus 28.6%, with a median progression-free survival of 5.9 versus 6.1 months and median OS of 14.0 versus 12.8 months with VG and VC, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both vinflunine-based doublets offer a similar DCR, ORR and OS. The better haematological tolerance favours the VG combination, which warrants further study. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: NCT 01599013.

[CCAFU french national guidelines 2016-2018 on renal cancer]. / Recommandations en onco-urologie 2016-2018 du CCAFU : Cancer du rein.

The previous guidelines from the Cancer Committee of the Association Française d'Urologie were published in 2013. We wanted this new version to be simple, clear and straightforward. All significant recent publications on kidney cancer have been included. The main changes compared to 2013 are the following: © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

RANK/OPG ratio of expression in primary clear-cell renal cell carcinoma is associated with bone metastasis and prognosis in patients treated with anti-VEGFR-TKIs.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases (BMs) are associated with poor outcome in metastatic clear-cell renal carcinoma (m-ccRCC) treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (anti-VEGFR-TKIs). We aimed to investigate whether expression in the primary tumour of genes involved in the development of BM is associated with outcome in m-ccRCC patients treated with anti-VEGFR-TKIs. METHODS: Metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma patients with available fresh-frozen tumour and treated with anti-VEGFR-TKIs. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) for receptor activator of NF-kB (RANK), RANK-ligand (RANKL), osteoprotegerin (OPG), the proto-oncogene SRC and DKK1 (Dickkopf WNT signalling pathway inhibitor-1). Time-to-event analysis by Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression. RESULTS: We included 129 m-ccRCC patients treated between 2005 and 2013. An elevated RANK/OPG ratio was associated with shorter median time to metastasis (HR 0.50 (95% CI 0.29-0.87); P=0.014), shorter time to BM (HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.31-0.97); P=0.037), shorter median overall survival (mOS) since initial diagnosis (HR 2.27 (95% CI 1.44-3.60); P=0.0001), shorter median progression-free survival (HR 0.44 (95% CI 0.28-0.71); P=0.001) and mOS (HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.19-0.52); P<0.0001) on first-line anti-VEGFR-TKIs in the metastatic setting. Higher RANK expression was associated with shorter mOS on first-line anti-VEGFR-TKIs (HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.29-0.73); P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RANK/OPG ratio of expression in primary ccRCC is associated with BM and prognosis in patients treated with anti-VEGFR-TKIs. Prospective validation is warranted.

Hypertension and angiotensin system inhibitors: impact on outcome in sunitinib-treated patients for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: To examine the association between hypertension (HTN), angiotensin system inhibitors (ASI) use and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib (SU). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with mRCC who received SU as first-line treatment in Gustave Roussy from April 2004 to November 2013. The HTN (either pre-existing or secondary to SU), use of ASI (either before or during SU) were analysed. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of different exposures were compared with log-rank test. The associations between exposures and survival outcomes were estimated with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) through a multivariable Cox model adjusted for age, gender, International mRCC Database Consortium risk group and histology. RESULTS: Among 213 patients with a 3.6-year median follow-up, 134 were hypertensive and 105 were ASI users with a significant association between the two exposures (P < 0.0001). Hypertensive patients have longer OS (median: 41.6 versus 16.4 months, P < 0.0001) and longer PFS (median: 12.9 versus 5.6 months, P < 0.0001) than non-hypertensive patients (n = 79). ASI users (n = 105) had more HTN_PRE compared with those (n = 108) who did not (65% versus 19%, P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that hypertensive patients were significantly associated with OS (P = 0.05) and marginally with PFS (P = 0.06) while ASI intake was significantly associated with better OS [HR = 0.40; 95% CI (0.24-0.66), P < 0.001] and PFS [HR = 0.55 (0.35-0.86), P = 0.009]. The latter remain statistically significantly associated after controlling for the number of metastases. There is no difference on outcome between patients who receive ASI before starting SU and those who received ASI during SU treatment. CONCLUSION: Concomitant use of ASI may significantly improve OS and PFS in mRCC patients receiving SU. HTN is marginally associated with the outcome in these patients.