Single-cell protein activity analysis identifies recurrence-associated renal tumor macrophages.

Clear cell renal carcinoma (ccRCC) is a heterogeneous disease with a variable post-surgical course. To assemble a comprehensive ccRCC tumor microenvironment (TME) atlas, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) of hematopoietic and non-hematopoietic subpopulations from tumor and tumor-adjacent tissue of treatment-naive ccRCC resections. We leveraged the VIPER algorithm to quantitate single-cell protein activity and validated this approach by comparison to flow cytometry. The analysis identified key TME subpopulations, as well as their master regulators and candidate cell-cell interactions, revealing clinically relevant populations, undetectable by gene-expression analysis. Specifically, we uncovered a tumor-specific macrophage subpopulation characterized by upregulation of TREM2/APOE/C1Q, validated by spatially resolved, quantitative multispectral immunofluorescence. In a large clinical validation cohort, these markers were significantly enriched in tumors from patients who recurred following surgery. The study thus identifies TREM2/APOE/C1Q-positive macrophage infiltration as a potential prognostic biomarker for ccRCC recurrence, as well as a candidate therapeutic target.

An interdisciplinary consensus on the management of brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Brain metastases are a challenging manifestation of renal cell carcinoma. We have a limited understanding of brain metastasis tumor and immune biology, drivers of resistance to systemic treatment, and their overall poor prognosis. Current data support a multimodal treatment strategy with radiation treatment and/or surgery. Nonetheless, the optimal approach for the management of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma remains unclear. To improve patient care, the authors sought to standardize practical management strategies. They performed an unstructured literature review and elaborated on the current management strategies through an international group of experts from different disciplines assembled via the network of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition. Experts from different disciplines were administered a survey to answer questions related to current challenges and unmet patient needs. On the basis of the integrated approach of literature review and survey study results, the authors built algorithms for the management of single and multiple brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The literature review, consensus statements, and algorithms presented in this report can serve as a framework guiding treatment decisions for patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:454-489.

Long-Term Survival in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Tivozanib: Analysis of the Phase III TIVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib is an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Long-term exploratory analyses from the TIVO-3 trial in relapsed/refractory (R/R) RCC including patients (26%) with prior immuno-oncology (IO) therapy are reported. METHODS: Patients with R/R advanced RCC that progressed with 2 or 3 prior systemic therapies (≥1 VEGFR TKI) were randomized to tivozanib 1.5 mg QD or sorafenib 400 mg BID, stratified by IMDC risk and previous therapy. Safety, investigator-assessed long-term progression-free survival (LT-PFS), and serial overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean time on treatment was 11.0 months with tivozanib (n = 175) and 6.3 months with sorafenib (n = 175). Fewer grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred with tivozanib (46%) than sorafenib (55%). Dose modification rates were lower with tivozanib than sorafenib across age/prior IO subgroups; prior IO therapy did not impact dose reductions or discontinuations in either arm. Landmark LT-PFS rates were higher with tivozanib (3 years: 12.3% vs 2.4%; 4 years: 7.6% vs 0%). After 22.8 months mean follow-up, the OS HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.14); when conditioned on 12-month landmark PFS, tivozanib showed significant OS improvement over sorafenib (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91; 2-sided P = .0221). CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib demonstrated a consistent safety profile and long-term survival benefit in patients with R/R advanced RCC who were alive and progression free at 12 months. These post hoc exploratory analyses of LT-PFS and conditional OS support a clinically meaningful improvement with tivozanib versus sorafenib in this advanced RCC population.

A phase 1b open-label study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of py314 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Checkpoint inhibition (CPI) is a standard therapeutic approach in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, not all patients respond to CPI, and the immune suppressive characteristics of the RCC tumor microenvironment may contribute to treatment failure. Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid Cells-2 (TREM2) is a transmembrane protein expressed on a subset of myeloid cells with M2-like anti-inflammatory properties that has previously been associated with disease recurrence after nephrectomy and poor outcomes when expressed at high levels. PY314 is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting TREM2 that depletes tumor-associated macrophages. In this study, the combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab was investigated in patients with CPI-refractory RCC. Eligible patients had clear cell RCC with disease progression on prior CPI either in combination or sequentially with VEGF-TKI. Patients were treated with PY314 10 mg/kg in combination with pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 21 days. The primary objective was to assess safety and tolerability and secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics and anti-tumor activity by RECIST v1.1. Seventeen patients were enrolled with a median age of 67 years, 82% male, 100% had prior CPI, and 76% had received three or more prior lines of therapy. The combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile with 47.1% any grade treatment-related adverse events (AE) (including only 5.9% grade ≥ 3), the most common being fatigue, pyrexia, nausea, and infusion-related reactions. One patient achieved a partial response (6%), and four patients had stable disease (24%) as their best response. The median PFS was 1.4 months (95% CI 1.2- 3.8). The combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab was safe, but the limited anti-tumor effect observed suggests that TREM2 targeting in conjunction with PD-1 blockade may not overcome resistance to prior CPI. Further investigation is warranted to determine if improved efficacy can be achieved in IO-naïve settings. Trial Registration: NCT04691375.

PADRES: a phase 2 clinical trial of neoadjuvant axitinib for complex partial nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To report the results of PADRES (Prior Axitinib as a Determinant of Outcome of Renal Surgery, NCT03438708), a study investigating neoadjuvant axitinib for tumours of high complexity with imperative indication for partial nephrectomy (PN). METHODS: We conducted a single-arm phase II clinical trial of localized (cT1b-cT3M0) clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with imperative indications for nephron preservation, where PN is a high-risk procedure due to complexity (RENAL score 10-12). Axitinib 5 mg was administered twice daily for 8 weeks with repeat imaging at completion, followed by surgery. The primary outcome was successful completion of planned PN following axitinib treatment. Secondary objectives included changes in tumour diameter, RENAL nephrometry score, renal function and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v1.1, and surgical complications. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled (median age 69 years). Prior to therapy, twenty patients (74.0%) had ≥ clinical T3a staged tumours. Axitinib resulted in reductions in tumour diameter (7.5 vs 6.2 cm; P < 0.001) and RENAL score (11 vs 10; P < 0.001). Nine patients (33.3%) had partial response based on RECIST and nine (33.3%) were clinically downstaged. PN was performed in twenty patients (74.0%); twenty-five patients (96.2%) had negative margins. Six patients (22.2%) had Clavien III-IV complications. The median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (preoperative to last follow-up) was 8.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 . CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant axitnib resulted in reductions in tumour size and complexity, enabling safe and feasible PN and functional preservation in patients with complex renal masses and imperative indication.

Treatment of renal cell carcinoma: Current status and future directions.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Over the past 12 years, medical treatment for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has transitioned from a nonspecific immune approach (in the cytokine era), to targeted therapy against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and now to novel immunotherapy agents. Multiple agents-including molecules against vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and related receptors; inhibitors of other targets, such as the mammalian target of rapamycin and the MET and AXL tyrosine-protein kinase receptors; and an immune-checkpoint inhibitor-have been approved based on significant activity in patients with advanced RCC. Despite these advances, important questions remain regarding biomarkers of efficacy, patient selection, and the optimal combination and sequencing of agents. The purpose of this review is to summarize present management and future directions in the treatment of metastatic RCC. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:507-524. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

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.

Tivozanib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Previously Treated With Axitinib: Subgroup Analysis from TIVO-3.

BACKGROUND: In phase III TIVO-3 trial, tivozanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the effectiveness of this drug after exposure to other selective VEGFR agents has not yet been defined. Herein, we characterize the clinical efficacy of tivozanib in patients with mRCC previously treated with axitinib. METHODS: We identified patients from the intention to treat (ITT) population, in the TIVO-3 trial, who received treatment with axitinib before enrolment in the study and evaluated PFS, response rate (RR), and safety. RESULTS: Out of 350 patients, 172 (83:89, tivozanib:sorafenib) had received prior treatment with axitinib in TIVO-3. In this subgroup, PFS was 5.5 months with tivozanib and 3.7 months with sorafenib (HR 0.68). RR was 13% and 8% favoring tivozanib. CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib is active in the treatment of patients with mRCC who have progressed on prior therapies, including axitinib.

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.

Adjuvant immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesise available data regarding the disease-free survival (DFS) benefit of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and evaluate the overall safety profile of ICIs in this setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilised PubMed, Embase, and relevant conference proceedings to identify phase III randomised controlled trials comparing adjuvant ICIs vs placebo/observation for RCC. The primary outcome of interest was DFS. Variables for subgroup analyses were programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, sarcomatoid features, nephrectomy type, and disease-risk category. Secondary outcomes included Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), immune-related AEs, and treatment discontinuation due to AEs. All outcomes were analysed using random-effects models owing to inter-study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Among the four included studies, one demonstrated a significant DFS benefit. There was considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity (I2  = 64%) due to differences in inclusion criteria and interventions. While pooled results across the four studies did not demonstrate a significant benefit in DFS overall (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.04) there was significant benefit among patients with positive PD-L1 expression (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.94) and sarcomatoid features (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38-0.91). CONCLUSION: The evidence base to date regarding ICIs as adjuvant therapy in RCC is mixed - conclusions are limited by considerable heterogeneity between studies. However, pooled analyses suggest that patients with positive PD-L1 expression or sarcomatoid features are most likely to benefit from adjuvant immunotherapy.

Plain language summary looking at how long side effects last after treatment with axitinib is stopped in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Axitinib is a medication that stops cancer cell growth by depriving the cancer cell of the nutrients and oxygen that it needs. Axitinib is used to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is a type of kidney cancer that has spread within or beyond the kidney. Axitinib has been approved for the treatment of RCC as either a first treatment option or a second treatment option. It is used as a first treatment option for RCC when combined with a medication that reactivates the immune system (immunotherapy), either avelumab or pembrolizumab. If the advanced RCC starts growing again it can be used as a second treatment option where it is taken by itself. It is essential to conduct studies to assess how well the drug works and whether it has any side effects in order to understand whether it is safe to give to people. This summary reports the combined results of 5 studies and looks at how long side effects last after treatment is temporarily stopped. Researchers found that side effects generally got better in 3 days or less after people stopped taking axitinib on its own. The time it took for side effects to get better was generally shorter than for other similar drugs or combinations of axitinib and immunotherapy. The results of individual studies may vary from these 5 combined study results. Three of the 5 studies were ongoing at the time of this analysis and the final outcomes of those studies may differ from those described in this summary. The purpose of this plain language summary is to help you understand the findings from recent research. Health professionals should make treatment decisions based on all available evidence. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00678392, NCT00920816, NCT02493751, NCT02684006, NCT02853331 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

LITESPARK-012: pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib with or without belzutifan or quavonlimab for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Combination treatment with immunotherapy agents and/or vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are a standard of care for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Novel therapeutic combinations that include the hypoxia-inducible factor 2α inhibitor belzutifan and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor quavonlimab are being investigated for their potential to further improve patient outcomes. This protocol describes the rationale and design of the randomized, phase III LITESPARK-012 study, which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib with or without belzutifan or quavonlimab as first-line treatment for advanced ccRCC. Results from this study may support triplet combination therapies as a potential new standard of care for advanced ccRCC. Clinical trial registry: NCT04736706 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

A Modern Assessment of Cancer Risk in Adrenal Incidentalomas: Analysis of 2219 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of and risk factors for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) in adrenal incidentaloma (AI). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: AI guidelines are based on data obtained with old-generation imaging and predominantly use tumor size to stratify risk for ACC. There is a need to analyze the incidence and risk factors from a contemporary series. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 2219 AIs that were either surgically removed or nonoperatively monitored for ≥12 months between 2000 and 2017. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to define risk factors. ROC curves constructed to determine optimal size and attenuation cut-offs for ACC. RESULTS: 16.8% of AIs underwent upfront surgery and rest initial nonoperative management. Of conservatively managed patients, an additional 7.7% subsequently required adrenalectomy. Overall, ACC incidence in AI was 1.7%. ACC rates by size were 0.1%, 2.4%, and 19.5% for AIs of <4, 4 to 6, and >6 cm, respectively. The optimal size cut-off for ACC in AI was 4.6 cm. ACC risks by Hounsfield density were 0%, 0.5%, and 6.3% for lesions of <10, 10 to 20, and >20 HU, with an optimal cut-off of 20 HU to diagnose ACC. 15.5% of all AIs and 19.2% of ACCs were hormonally active. Male sex, large tumor size, high Hounsfield density, and >0.6 cm/year growth were independent risk factors for ACC. CONCLUSION: This contemporary analysis demonstrates that ACC risk per size in AI is less than previously reported. Given these findings, modern management of AIs should not be based just on size, but a combination of thorough hormonal evaluation and imaging characteristics.

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

BACKGROUND: The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib showed antitumor activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Whether pembrolizumab plus axitinib would result in better outcomes than sunitinib in such patients was unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 861 patients with previously untreated advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily (432 patients) or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for the first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle (429 patients). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end point was the objective response rate. All reported results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, the estimated percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 89.9% in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 78.3% in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 11.1 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 59.3% (95% CI, 54.5 to 63.9) in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 35.7% (95% CI, 31.1 to 40.4) in the sunitinib group (P<0.001). The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was observed across the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups (i.e., favorable, intermediate, and poor risk) and regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression. Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 75.8% of patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and in 70.6% in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival, as well as a higher objective response rate, than treatment with sunitinib. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-426 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02853331.).

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.).

Approaches to First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Four immuno-oncology (IO)-based combinations have demonstrated overall survival benefit as frontline treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Choosing among the available combinations depends on treating physician's interpretation of existing data without level I evidence to inform choice of therapy. Landmark trials of mccRCC are reviewed and perspective on treatment options is provided. RECENT FINDINGS: The four IO-based combinations reviewed are ipilimumab/nivolumab (IO/IO), pembrolizumab/axitinib (IO/TKI), nivolumab/cabozantinib (IO/TKI), and pembrolizumab/lenvatinib (IO/TKI). The ipilimumab/nivolumab combination is notable for durable efficacy after extended 4-year follow-up. IO/TKI combinations have clinical efficacy across all IMDC risk groups with higher response rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS) but also had higher ≥ grade 3 adverse events rate. Patient tumor burden, performance status, and IMDC risk group are factors in choosing an IO-based treatment. IO/IO and IO/TKI combinations for mccRCC have distinct efficacy and toxicity profiles. Future studies are needed to identify biomarkers to optimize patient outcomes.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: outcomes of Japanese patients enrolled in the randomized, phase III, open-label KEYNOTE-426 study.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III open-label KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study, first-line pembrolizumab and axitinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). KEYNOTE-426 evaluated patients enrolled from 25 sites in Japan. METHODS: Patients enrolled in Japan were included in this post hoc subgroup analysis. Adults with clear cell mRCC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily or oral sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Objective response rate (ORR) and safety were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The Japanese subgroup comprised 94 patients (pembrolizumab-axitinib, n = 44; sunitinib, n = 50; 11% of the intent-to-treat population). Median time from randomization to data cutoff (January 6, 2020) was 29.5 months (range 24.6-37.3). Consistent with the intent-to-treat population, the OS, PFS, and ORR suggested improvement with pembrolizumab-axitinib versus sunitinib in the Japanese subgroup. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 70% of patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib versus 78% receiving sunitinib; 11 (25%) patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib and 13 (27%) patients receiving sunitinib discontinued the study medication due to AEs. TRAEs led to the discontinuation of pembrolizumab, axitinib, pembrolizumab-axitinib, or sunitinib in 32%, 34%, 14%, and 20%, respectively. No deaths from TRAEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy outcomes for the Japanese subgroup were consistent with those of the global population. Safety in Japanese patients was consistent with the results from the global population.

Hydroxychloroquine as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Workers: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).