Adjuvant therapy in patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: post hoc analysis from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) E2805.

OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of adjuvant therapy in patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (sRCC) enrolled in the randomised phase III clinical trial E2805. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The original trial (E2805) was a randomised, double-blinded phase III clinical trial comparing outcomes in 1943 patients with RCC accrued between 2006 and 2010 and treated with up to 1 year of adjuvant placebo, sunitinib, or sorafenib. The present study analyses the cohort of patients with sRCC that participated in E2805. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients (8.8%) had sarcomatoid features. Of these, 52 patients received sunitinib, 58 received sorafenib, and 61 received placebo. Most patients were pT3-4 (71.1%, 63.7%, and 70.5%, respectively); 17.3%, 19.0%, and 27.9% had pathologically positive lymph nodes; and 59.6%, 62.1%, and 62.3% of the patients were University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Integrated Staging System (UISS) very-high risk. In 49% of patients with subsequent development of metastatic disease, recurrence occurred in the lung, followed by 30% in the lymph nodes, and 13% in the liver. There was a high local recurrence rate in the renal bed (16%, 29%, and 18%, respectively). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 33.6%, 36.0%, and 27.8%, for sunitinib, sorafenib and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.20 for sunitinib vs placebo, and HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53-1.28 for sorafenib vs placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with sunitinib or sorafenib did not show an improvement in DFS or OS in patients with sRCC.

Local Recurrence Following Resection of Intermediate-High Risk Nonmetastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Anatomical Classification and Analysis of the ASSURE (ECOG-ACRIN E2805) Adjuvant Trial.

PURPOSE: We describe what is to our knowledge a novel classification system for local recurrence after surgery of renal cell carcinoma. We assessed its prognostic implications using prospective, randomized controlled data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried the ASSURE (Sunitinib Malate or Sorafenib Tosylate in Treating Patients With Kidney Cancer That Was Removed By Surgery) (ECOG-ACRIN [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network] E2805) trial data for patients with fully resected, intermediate-high risk, nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma with local recurrence. We used certain definitions, including type I-single recurrence in a remnant kidney or ipsilateral renal fossa, type II-single recurrence in the ipsilateral vasculature, the ipsilateral adrenal gland or a lymph node, type III-single recurrence in other intra-abdominal soft tissues or organs and type IV-any combination of types I-III or multiple recurrences of a single type. Multivariable logistic regression and the log rank test were performed to identify clinicopathological predictors and compare survival, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 1,943 patients 300 (15.4%) had local recurrence, which was type I, II, III and IV in 66 (22.0%), 97 (32.3%), 87 (29.0%) and 50 (16.7%), respectively. Surgical modality (minimally invasive vs open) and type of surgery (partial vs radical) did not predict any local recurrence. Five-year cancer specific survival and overall survival were worse in patients with type IV recurrence (each p <0.001). There was no difference in survival among patients with types I to III recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate-high risk nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma local recurrence appears to be a function of biology more than of surgical modality or surgery type. The prognosis for solitary intra-abdominal local recurrences appear similar regardless of location (types I-III). Local recurrences involving multiple sites and/or subdivisions are associated with worse survival (type IV).

NCI 6896: a phase I trial of vorinostat (SAHA) and isotretinoin (13-cis retinoic acid) in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Preclinical studies suggest that histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors may restore tumor sensitivity to retinoids and have synergistic anti-tumor activity when combined. We performed a Phase I clinical trial to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of combining the oral HDAC inhibitor vorinostat and isotretinoin in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Vorinostat was administered at 300 mg orally twice daily in combination with escalating doses of isotretinoin for 3 consecutive days per week. A standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design was used. Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were assess during the first cycle to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Fourteen patients enrolled on the trial of which 12 were evaluable for toxicity (6 cohort 1; 3 cohort 2; 3 cohort 3) and 11 for tumor response. One patient in cohort 1 experienced a DLT (grade 3 depression). Common grade 1-2 toxicities included fatigue and GI effects (nausea, diarrhea, anorexia). MTD was established as vorinostat 300 mg with isoretinoin 0.5 mg/kg twice daily 3 days per week. Best responses in evaluable patients included 1 partial response and 9 stable disease, lasting a median of 3.7 months (range 1.8-10.4 months). The combination of vorinostat and isotretinoin is safe, tolerable and associated with responses in patients with refractory metastatic RCC.

Association between age and sex and mortality after adjuvant therapy for renal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In phase 3 trials of patients with resected high-risk renal cell carcinoma, adjuvant sunitinib has demonstrated no overall survival (OS) benefit, an uncertain disease-free survival (DFS) benefit, and increased toxicity versus placebo. To identify patients who may derive benefit or harm from adjuvant therapy, the authors assessed the effects of age and sex on treatment outcomes in the phase 3 Adjuvant Sorafenib or Sunitinib for Unfavorable Renal Cancer (ASSURE) trial. METHODS: The authors conducted a post hoc subgroup analysis of age and sex among patients in the ASSURE trial. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and DFS were evaluated with sunitinib or sorafenib versus placebo in 4 patient subgroups defined by sex and median age at the time of the study. RESULTS: Sunitinib treatment was associated with decreased OS (HR, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.80) among women aged >56 years, but not in women aged ≤56 years or men of any age. Similar associations with age and sex were observed for DFS, but these were not statistically significant (women aged >56 years: HR, 1.41 [95% confidence interval, 0.94-2.10]). No such association was found for sorafenib. The interaction by age and sex on mortality was found to be statistically significant for sunitinib (P = .01), but not sorafenib (P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant sunitinib may increase mortality among older women with renal cell carcinoma. Given the recent approval of adjuvant sunitinib for patients with high-risk resected renal cell carcinoma, additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib for high-risk, non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (ECOG-ACRIN E2805): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Renal-cell carcinoma is highly vascular, and proliferates primarily through dysregulation of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. We tested sunitinib and sorafenib, two oral anti-angiogenic agents that are effective in advanced renal-cell carcinoma, in patients with resected local disease at high risk for recurrence. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients at 226 study centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients had pathological stage high-grade T1b or greater with completely resected non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma and adequate cardiac, renal, and hepatic function. Patients were stratified by recurrence risk, histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and surgical approach, and computerised double-blind randomisation was done centrally with permuted blocks. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 54 weeks of sunitinib 50 mg per day orally throughout the first 4 weeks of each 6 week cycle, sorafenib 400 mg twice per day orally throughout each cycle, or placebo. Placebo could be sunitinib placebo given continuously for 4 weeks of every 6 week cycle or sorafenib placebo given twice per day throughout the study. The primary objective was to compare disease-free survival between each experimental group and placebo in the intention-to-treat population. All treated patients with at least one follow-up assessment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326898. FINDINGS: Between April 24, 2006, and Sept 1, 2010, 1943 patients from the National Clinical Trials Network were randomly assigned to sunitinib (n=647), sorafenib (n=649), or placebo (n=647). Following high rates of toxicity-related discontinuation after 1323 patients had enrolled (treatment discontinued by 193 [44%] of 438 patients on sunitinib, 199 [45%] of 441 patients on sorafenib), the starting dose of each drug was reduced and then individually titrated up to the original full doses. On Oct 16, 2014, because of low conditional power for the primary endpoint, the ECOG-ACRIN Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended that blinded follow-up cease and the results be released. The primary analysis showed no significant differences in disease-free survival. Median disease-free survival was 5·8 years (IQR 1·6-8·2) for sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 97·5% CI 0·85-1·23, p=0·8038), 6·1 years (IQR 1·7-not estimable [NE]) for sorafenib (HR 0·97, 97·5% CI 0·80-1·17, p=0·7184), and 6·6 years (IQR 1·5-NE) for placebo. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (105 [17%] patients on sunitinib and 102 [16%] patients on sorafenib), hand-foot syndrome (94 [15%] patients on sunitinib and 208 [33%] patients on sorafenib), rash (15 [2%] patients on sunitinib and 95 [15%] patients on sorafenib), and fatigue 110 [18%] patients on sunitinib [corrected]. There were five deaths related to treatment or occurring within 30 days of the end of treatment; one patient receiving sorafenib died from infectious colitis while on treatment and four patients receiving sunitinib died, with one death due to each of neurological sequelae, sequelae of gastric perforation, pulmonary embolus, and disease progression. Revised dosing still resulted in high toxicity. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant treatment with the VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or sunitinib showed no survival benefit relative to placebo in a definitive phase 3 study. Furthermore, substantial treatment discontinuation occurred because of excessive toxicity, despite dose reductions. These results provide a strong rationale against the use of these drugs for high-risk kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting and suggest that the biology of cancer recurrence might be independent of angiogenesis. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute and ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Pfizer, and Bayer.

Contemporary experience with high-dose interleukin-2 therapy and impact on survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) was approved for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 1992 and for metastatic melanoma (mM) in 1998, in an era predating targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. The PROCLAIMSM registry was established to collect and analyze data for patients treated with HD IL-2 in the current era. This analysis includes 170 patients with mM and 192 patients with mRCC treated between 2005 and 2012 with survival data current as of July 27, 2015. For patients with mM, complete response (CR) was observed in 5 %, partial response (PR) in 10 %, stable disease (SD) in 22 %, and 63 % had progressive disease (PD). The median overall survival (mOS) for these patients was 19.6 months, with a median follow-up of 43.1 months. The mOS was not reached for patients achieving CR or PR, and was 33.4 months for patients with SD. For patients with mRCC, 6 % achieved CR, 9 % had PR, 22 % had SD, and 62 % had PD. The mOS was 41 months, with a median follow-up of 46.6 months. The mOS for patients who had CR and PR was not reached and was 49.6 months for patients with SD. There were no treatment-related deaths among 362 patients. The duration of mOS for patients with mM and mRCC is longer than historically reported. These data support a continued role for IL-2 in the treatment of eligible patients with mM or mRCC and warrant further evaluation of HD IL-2 in combination or sequence with other therapeutic agents.

Renal cell carcinoma in patients with a personal or family history of hematologic malignancies.

A little-appreciated association between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and hematologic malignancies (HMs) has been reported for at least 20 years. The HM characteristically occurs first in patients with both neoplasms, and the large majority (94%) of these HMs are of B-cell origin. Furthermore, the majority of patients with RCC and an HM are male. Recently, we have noted an increased incidence of HMs in families of patients with RCC and are exploring this observation further. Here, we summarize our reports on the association between these neoplasms in individual patients and review the relevant literature.

Families with both Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma in their pedigrees.

Reports of familial clustering of hematologic malignancies have appeared for decades, but the cause of this uncommon observation is still unknown. Most modern investigations support a genetic rather than an environmental explanation. Clinically, most pedigrees of families with familial hematologic malignancies demonstrate age of onset anticipation (ie, diagnosis at an earlier age in successive generations). The cause of anticipation is clear in some familial neurologic disorders (eg, trinucleotide repeat expansion in Huntington disease) but unclear in familial hematologic malignancies. In preparation for molecular studies on familial clustering of hematologic malignancies, we collected pedigrees on 738 families. In these families, we observed anticipation in those with familial multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Here we present preliminary data on 26 families with both multiple myeloma and Hodgkin lymphoma in their pedigrees, and demonstrate strong evidence for anticipation and predominantly male transmission of these neoplasms. We encourage all health care personnel to ask patients about their family's medical history, to take careful family histories from individuals with uncommon illnesses, and to refer families with clustering of such illnesses for investigation.

Families with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and plasma cell dyscrasias in their pedigrees.

Although reports of familial clustering of hematologic malignancies have appeared for decades, the cause(s) of this uncommon occurrence is still not completely understood. Most modern investigations, however, support a genetic rather than an environmental exposure as a cause of this observation. Most pedigrees of families with familial hematologic malignancies demonstrate age of onset anticipation, with the disease diagnosed at an earlier age in successive generations. The cause of this phenomenon is clear in some familial neurologic disorders (trinucleotide repeat expansion) but not at all clear in familial hematologic malignancies. In preparation for molecular studies of familial clustering of hematologic malignancies, we have collected pedigrees on 738 families and have previously demonstrated anticipation in those with familial plasma cell myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Here we present data on 36 families with both plasma cell myeloma and NHL in their pedigrees and demonstrate strong evidence for anticipation in these families. We encourage all health care personnel to ask patients multiple times about family medical history and carefully take note of family histories from individuals with uncommon illnesses and to refer families with clustering of such illnesses for further investigation.

EXPRESS: Families with Multiple Individuals with Acute Leukemia in Their Pedigrees.

Forty-one families with multiple cases of de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML), B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (B-ALL) or both are presented. The families were randomly collected from physicians, genetic counselors and other sources. Medical records were collected and reviewed for all families. In 17 of the families a parent and child with acute leukemia were identified and in 15 of the pairs the parent and child were of the same sex. Nine grandparent-grandchild affected pairs with AML-AML were identified, occurring in 6 families, and 6 of those pairs were also of the same sex. Anticipation was a common feature of these multigenerational pairs. Twenty families were identified with multiple siblings (none twins) with acute leukemia. This includes 16 sibling pairs and 4 sibling triples. The members of each sibling pair in the AML-AML group and in the B-ALL-B-ALL group were generally of roughly the same age. Curiously, this is not true of those in the AML-B-ALL group. Four of the 41 families had contributions to more than 1 family relationship category. Although inheritance in familial acute leukemia has usually been consistent with an autosomal dominant pattern, these data suggest that an X chromosome gene may be involved in some cases, perhaps in the pseudoautosomal region of the X chromosome as we have reported in familial Hodgkin lymphoma.

Randomized, Double-Blind Phase III Study of Pazopanib Versus Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Who Have No Evidence of Disease After Metastasectomy: ECOG-ACRIN E2810.

PURPOSE: Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for renal cell carcinoma are at high risk of recurrence. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test whether pazopanib would improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with NED after metastasectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily versus placebo for 52 weeks. The study was designed to observe an improvement in DFS from 25% to 45% with pazopanib at 3 years, corresponding to 42% reduction in the DFS event rate. RESULTS: From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events (92% information). The study did not meet its primary end point. An updated analysis at 60.5-month median follow-up from random assignment (95% CI, 59.3 to 71.0) showed that the 3-year DFS was 27.4% (95% CI, 17.9 to 41.7) for pazopanib and 21.9% (95% CI, 13.3 to 36.2) for placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) for DFS was 0.90 ([95% CI, 0.60 to 1.34]; Pone-sided = .29) in favor of pazopanib. Three-year overall survival (OS) was 81.9% (95% CI, 72.7 to 92.2) for pazopanib and 91.4% (95% CI, 84.4 to 98.9) for placebo. The HR for OS was 2.55 (95% CI, 1.23 to 5.27) in favor of placebo (Ptwo-sided = .012). Health-related quality-of-life measures deteriorated in the pazopanib group during the treatment period. CONCLUSION: Pazopanib did not improve DFS as the primary end point compared with blinded placebo in patients with mRCC with NED after metastasectomy. In addition, there was a concerning trend favoring placebo in OS.

Results From a Randomized Phase II Trial of Sunitinib and Gemcitabine or Sunitinib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma with Sarcomatoid Features: ECOG-ACRIN E1808.

INTRODUCTION: Sarcomatoid renal cancer (sRCC) patients have poor outcomes. EA1808 evaluated sunitinib and gemcitabine (SG) and sunitinib alone (S) in sRCC in a randomized cooperative group phase II trial (NCT01164228). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pts were aggregated 1:1 to SG (45 pts) or S (40 pts) using a 2-stage design. sRCC pts with ≤ 1 prior nonvascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor were stratified into prognostic groups: good (clear cell, < 20% sarcomatoid, PS 0), intermediate (20%-50% sarcomatoid, PS 0), and poor (nonclear cell or > 50% sarcomatoid or PS 1). The primary endpoint was response rate (RR). For SG, the null RR was 15% and a 30% RR was of interest. For S, a 20% RR was of interest vs. a 5% null rate. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Both arms met protocol criteria for stage 2 of accrual. A total of 47 pts were randomized to SG and 40 to S. The SG arm had 9 of 45 evaluable patient responses (RR of 20%; CI = [13%-31%]) not meeting the predetermined threshold for success. The sunitinib arm met its endpoint with 6/37 (RR of 16%; CI = [9%-27%]) evaluable responses. Grade ≥ 3 events were experienced by 36 in the SG arm and 17 in the sunitinib arm CONCLUSIONS: EA1808 was the largest and first randomized cytotoxic trial for sarcomatoid RCC. Sunitinib alone but not the SG met the preset threshold of success. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is only useful in limited clinical scenarios for sRCC.

Integrating innovative therapeutic strategies into the management of renal cell carcinoma.

Three emerging trends have occurred recently in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). First, over the last several decades there has been a marked increase in the diagnosis of RCC, with a corresponding decrease in the typical tumor size, resulting in an increased interest in less invasive approaches to primary tumor treatment. Second, while conventional radiotherapy plays a limited palliative role due to the relative radio-resistance of RCC, advances in immobilization and image guidance have led several investigators to consider stereotactic radiotherapy techniques (SRT) to overcome this resistance, with impressive results in the metastatic setting. In addition, preliminary use of SRT to treat the primary RCC tumor is underway. Thirdly, although RCC is resistant to conventional chemotherapy agents, exciting recent advances have emerged in the treatment of clear cell RCC, with the development of targeted agents in addition to immunotherapy-based treatments. In the current critical review we discuss these emerging trends in localized and systemic treatment as well as possible interesting combinations of the two modalities. Finally, we discuss the role of the new systemic agents in non-clear cell RCC.

Adherence to oral therapies among patients with renal cell carcinoma: Post hoc analysis of the ECOG-ACRIN E2805 trial.

BACKGROUND: As use of oral cancer therapies increases, patient adherence has become critical when evaluating the effectiveness of therapy. In a phase III trial for renal cell carcinoma, we: (a) characterized adherence to sorafenib, sunitinib, and/or placebo and (b) identified factors associated with non-adherence. METHODS: ECOG-ACRIN E2805 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial comparing adjuvant sorafenib or sunitinib in patients with resected primary renal cell carcinoma at high risk for recurrence. We used patient-completed pill diaries to measure adherence as the number of pills taken divided by the number of pills prescribed. Log-binomial regression was used to identify correlates of non-adherence (<80% of prescribed pills reported as taken). RESULTS: Mean adherence was 90.7% among those assigned to sunitinib (n = 613) and 84.8% among those assigned to sorafenib (n = 616). Among those assigned to placebo, mean adherence was 94.9% and 92.4% to sunitinib and sorafenib placebo, respectively. Non-adherence was associated with race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black: prevalence ratio [PR] 2.22, 95% CI 1.63, 3.01; Hispanic: PR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05, 2.26), high volume enrollment (≥10 patients: PR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03, 1.64), treatment group (sunitinib: PR 2.24, 95% CI 1.66, 3.02; sorafenib: PR 2.37, 95% CI 1.74, 3.22), and skin rash (PR 1.36, 95% CI 1.03, 1.80). CONCLUSION: Among patients participating in a randomized clinical trial, adherence to oral cancer therapies was lower compared to placebo. Adherence was also worse in racial/ethnic minorities, those experiencing toxicities, and high volume enrolling sites. Our findings highlight several challenges to address in clinical practice as use of oral therapies continues to increase. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326898.

Plasma KIM-1 Is Associated with Recurrence Risk after Nephrectomy for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Research Group (E2805).

PURPOSE: No circulating biomarkers are currently available to identify patients at highest risk of recurrence after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) is overexpressed in RCC and its ectodomain circulates in plasma. We investigated whether plasma KIM-1 is a prognostic biomarker in patients with localized RCC after nephrectomy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The ECOG-ACRIN E2805 (ASSURE) trial evaluated adjuvant sunitinib, sorafenib, or placebo in resected high-risk RCC. KIM-1 levels were measured from banked plasma at trial enrollment 4-12 weeks after nephrectomy. Lognormal accelerated failure time models were used to test for association between KIM-1 and disease-free survival (DFS) as well as overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Plasma from 418 patients was analyzed. Higher post-nephrectomy KIM-1 was associated with worse DFS across all study arms after adjustment for Fuhrman grade, T stage, N stage, and tumor histology [survival time ratio 0.56 for 75th vs. 25th percentile of KIM-1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.73; P < 0.001]. The association between KIM-1 and DFS was stronger among patients with pathologic nodal involvement (P interaction = 0.0086). The addition of post-nephrectomy KIM-1 improved the concordance of clinical prognostic models [Stage, Size, Grade, and Necrosis (SSIGN) concordance 0.57 vs. 0.43, P = 0.05; UCLA International Staging System (UISS) concordance 0.60 vs. 0.40, P = 0.0005]. Higher post-nephrectomy KIM-1 was also associated with worse OS after multivariable adjustment (survival time ratio 0.71 for 75th vs. 25th percentile of KIM-1; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Post-nephrectomy plasma KIM-1 is associated with DFS and OS in RCC, and may be a biomarker for microscopic residual disease.

Long-term progression-free survival of patients with metastatic melanoma or renal cell carcinoma following high-dose interleukin-2.

High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) was approved in the 1990s after demonstrating durable complete responses (CRs) in some patients with metastatic melanoma (mM) and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients who achieve this level of disease control have also demonstrated improved survival compared with patients who progress, but limited data are available describing the long-term course. The aim of this study was to better characterize long-term survival following successful HD IL-2 treatment in patients with no subsequent systemic therapy. Eleven HD IL-2 treatment centers identified patients with survival ≥5 years after HD IL-2, with no subsequent systemic therapy. Survival was evaluated from the date of IL-2 treatment to June 2017. Treatment courses consisted of 2 1-week cycles of HD IL-2. Patients were treated with HD IL-2 alone, or HD IL-2 followed by local therapy to achieve maximal response. 100 patients are reported: 54 patients with mM and 46 patients with mRCC. Progression-free survival (PFS) after HD IL-2 ranges from 5+ years to 30+ years, with a median follow-up of 10+ years. 27 mRCC and 32 mM are alive ≥10 years after IL-2. Thus, a small subset of patients with mM and mRCC achieve long-term PFS (≥5 years) after treatment with HD IL-2 as their only systemic therapy. The ability of HD IL-2 therapy to induce prolonged PFS should be a major consideration in studies of new immunotherapy combinations for mM and mRCC.

Predicting Disease Recurrence, Early Progression, and Overall Survival Following Surgical Resection for High-risk Localized and Locally Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) relies heavily on retrospective models, limiting their generalizability to contemporary cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To introduce a contemporary RCC prognostic model, developed using prospective, highly annotated data from a phase III adjuvant trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The model utilizes outcome data from the ECOG-ACRIN 2805 (ASSURE) RCC trial. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome for the model is disease-free survival (DFS), with overall survival (OS) and early disease progression (EDP) as secondary outcomes. Model performance was assessed using discrimination and calibration tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1735 patients were included in the analysis, with 887 DFS events occurring over a median follow-up of 9.6 yr. Five common tumor variables (histology, size, grade, tumor necrosis, and nodal involvement) were included in each model. Tumor histology was the single most powerful predictor for each model outcome. The C-statistics at 1 yr were 78.4% and 81.9% for DFS and OS, respectively. Degradation of the DFS, DFS validation set, and OS model's discriminatory ability was seen over time, with a global c-index of 68.0% (95% confidence interval or CI [65.5, 70.4]), 68.6% [65.1%, 72.2%], and 69.4% (95% CI [66.9%, 71.9%], respectively. The EDP model had a c-index of 75.1% (95% CI [71.3, 79.0]). CONCLUSIONS: We introduce a contemporary RCC recurrence model built and internally validated using prospective and highly annotated data from a clinical trial. Performance characteristics of the current model exceed available prognostic models with the added benefit of being histology inclusive and TNM agnostic. PATIENT SUMMARY: Important decisions, including treatment protocols, clinical trial eligibility, and life planning, rest on our ability to predict cancer outcomes accurately. Here, we introduce a contemporary renal cell carcinoma prognostic model leveraging high-quality data from a clinical trial. The current model predicts three outcome measures commonly utilized in clinical practice and exceeds the predictive ability of available prognostic models.