Phase II clinical trial of neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 (toripalimab) combined with axitinib in resectable mucosal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of patients with resectable mucosal melanoma is poor. Toripalimab combined with axitinib has shown impressive results in metastatic mucosal melanoma with an objective response rate of 48.3% and a median progression-free survival of 7.5 months in a phase Ib trial. It was hypothesized that this combination administered in the neoadjuvant setting might induce a pathologic response in resectable mucosal melanoma, so we conducted this trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-arm phase II trial enrolled patients with resectable mucosal melanoma. Patients received toripalimab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (Q2W) plus axitinib 5 mg two times a day (b.i.d.) for 8 weeks as neoadjuvant therapy, then surgery and adjuvant toripalimab 3 mg/kg Q2W starting 2 ± 1weeks after surgery for 44 weeks. The primary endpoint was the pathologic response rate according to the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium recommendations. RESULTS: Between August 2019 and October 2021, 29 patients were enrolled and received treatment, of whom 24 underwent resection. The median follow-up time was 34.2 months (95% confidence interval 20.4-48.0 months). The pathologic response rate was 33.3% (8/24; 4 pathological complete responses and 4 pathological partial responses). The median event-free survival for all patients was 11.1 months (95% confidence interval 5.3-16.9 months). The median overall survival was not reached. Neoadjuvant therapy was tolerable with 8 (27.5%) grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. Tissue samples of 17 patients at baseline and after surgery were collected (5 responders and 12 nonresponders). Multiplex immunohistochemistry demonstrated a significant increase in CD3+ (P = 0.0032) and CD3+CD8+ (P = 0.0038) tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes after neoadjuvant therapy, particularly in pathological responders. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant toripalimab combined with axitinib in resectable mucosal melanoma demonstrated a promising pathologic response rate with significantly increased infiltrating CD3+ and CD3+CD8+ T cells after therapy.

Toripalimab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: RENOTORCH, a randomized, open-label, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors are standard treatments for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This phase III RENOTORCH study compared the efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for the first-line treatment of patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk unresectable or metastatic RCC were randomized in a ratio of 1 : 1 to receive toripalimab (240 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily) or sunitinib [50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle) or 2 weeks (3-week cycle)]. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). The secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 421 patients were randomized to receive toripalimab plus axitinib (n = 210) or sunitinib (n = 211). With a median follow-up of 14.6 months, toripalimab plus axitinib significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 35% compared with sunitinib as assessed by an IRC [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.86; P = 0.0028]. The median PFS was 18.0 months in the toripalimab-axitinib group, whereas it was 9.8 months in the sunitinib group. The IRC-assessed ORR was significantly higher in the toripalimab-axitinib group compared with the sunitinib group (56.7% versus 30.8%; P < 0.0001). An OS trend favoring toripalimab plus axitinib was also observed (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.92). Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 61.5% of patients in the toripalimab-axitinib group and 58.6% of patients in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSION: In patients with previously untreated intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC, toripalimab plus axitinib provided significantly longer PFS and higher ORR than sunitinib and had a manageable safety profile TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04394975.

Combination immune checkpoint and targeted protein kinase inhibitors for the treatment of renal cell carcinomas.

Kidney cancers comprise about 3% of all new malignancies in the United States. Renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) are the most common type of renal malignancy making up about 85% of kidney cancer cases. Signs and symptoms of renal cell carcinomas can result from local tumor growth, paraneoplastic syndromes, or distant metastases. The classic triad of presentation with flank pain, hematuria, and a palpable abdominal mass occurs in fewer than 10% of patients. Most diagnoses result from incidental imaging findings (ultrasonography or abdominal CT imaging) performed for another reason. Localized disease is treated by partial nephrectomy, total nephrectomy, or ablation (tumor destruction with heat or cold). When the tumors have metastasized, systemic therapy with protein-tyrosine kinase antagonists including sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, and tivozanib that target vascular endothelial, platelet-derived, fibroblast, hepatocyte, and stem cell factor growth factor receptors (VEGFR, PDGFR, FGFR, MET, and Kit) were prescribed after 2005. The monoclonal antibody immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (targeting programed cell death protein 1, PD1) was approved for the treatment of RCCs in 2015. It is usually used now in combination with ipilimumab (targeting CTLA-4) or cabozantinib (a multikinase blocker). Other combination therapies include pembrolizumab (targeting PD1) and axitinib (a VEGFR and PDGFR blocker) or lenvatinib (a multikinase inhibitor). Since the KEYNOTE-426 clinical trial, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with protein-tyrosine kinase inhibitors is now the standard of care for most patients with metastatic renal cell carcinomas and monotherapies are used only in those individuals who cannot receive or tolerate immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The VEGFs/VEGFRs system in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases: Pathophysiological roles and therapeutic implications.

The vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) and their cognate receptors (VEGFRs), besides their well-known involvement in physiological angiogenesis/lymphangiogenesis and in diseases associated to pathological vessel formation, play multifaceted functions in the central nervous system (CNS). In addition to shaping brain development, by controlling cerebral vasculogenesis and regulating neurogenesis as well as astrocyte differentiation, the VEGFs/VEGFRs axis exerts essential functions in the adult brain both in physiological and pathological contexts. In this article, after describing the physiological VEGFs/VEGFRs functions in the CNS, we focus on the VEGFs/VEGFRs involvement in neurodegenerative diseases by reviewing the current literature on the rather complex VEGFs/VEGFRs contribution to the pathogenic mechanisms of Alzheimer's (AD) and Parkinson's (PD) diseases. Thereafter, based on the outcome of VEGFs/VEGFRs targeting in animal models of AD and PD, we discuss the factual relevance of pharmacological VEGFs/VEGFRs modulation as a novel and potential disease-modifying approach for these neurodegenerative pathologies. Specific VEGFRs targeting, aimed at selective VEGFR-1 inhibition, while preserving VEGFR-2 signal transduction, appears as a promising strategy to hit the molecular mechanisms underlying AD pathology. Moreover, therapeutic VEGFs-based approaches can be proposed for PD treatment, with the aim of fine-tuning their brain levels to amplify neurotrophic/neuroprotective effects while limiting an excessive impact on vascular permeability.

First-line dual immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies versus combination therapies comprising immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a comparative analysis of the effectiveness using real-world data.

BACKGROUND: There are few comparative studies on dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) (i.e., IO-IO) and combination therapies comprising ICIs plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (i.e., IO-TKI) for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), especially in real-world settings. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data of 175 patients with IMDC intermediate-risk or poor-risk RCC; as first-line therapy, 103 received IO-IO, and 72 received IO-TKI. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was conducted to balance patients' backgrounds in the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups. RESULTS: Based on the IPTW analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the IO-TKI group than in the IO-IO group (median: 15.6 vs. 8.3 months; p = 0.0386). In contrast, overall survival was not different between groups (median: 46.7 vs. 49.0 months; p = 0.465). Although the IPTW-adjusted objective response rate was not significantly different (51.2% vs. 43.9%; p = 0.359), the progressive disease rate as the best overall response was lower in the IO-TKI group than in the IO-IO group (3.3% vs. 27.4%; p < 0.0001). Regarding the safety profile, the treatment interruption rate was higher in the IO-TKI group than in the IO-IO group (70.3% vs. 49.2%; p = 0.005). In contrast, the IO-IO group had a higher corticosteroid administration rate (43.3% vs. 20.3%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: IO-TKI therapy exhibited superior effectiveness over IO-IO therapy in terms of PFS improvement and immediate disease progression prevention and was associated with a higher risk of treatment interruption and a lower risk of needing corticosteroids.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor-induced immune hemolytic anemia; three different drugs in three separate cases.

INTRODUCTION: Molecular multitargeted small tyrosine kinase inhibitory (TKI) agents such as axitinib, sunitinib and pazopanib are commonly used in several types of solid tumors. Anemia is not a rare effect of these drugs which may occur at all grades. However, drug-induced immune hemolytic anemia (IHA), a very rare condition is distinctive from other types of anemia with its specific mechanism and management strategy. CASE REPORTS: We reported three different TKI-induced IHA cases that occurred due to axitinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib, respectively. The first two cases were diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma and the last one was diagnosed with soft tissue sarcoma. They all presented with the characteristic symptoms of anemia and hemolysis. All the cases were detected positive for the complement C3d direct antiglobulin (direct coombs) test. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOMES: Discontinuation of the causative drug and 1 mg/kg/day dose of corticosteroid treatment were able to control IHA in all three cases. Excluding the other factors of IHA and an evident laboratory and clinical benefit after withholding the TKI led to the diagnosis of TKI-related IHA in each case. DISCUSSION: TKIs are relatively new in clinical practice and are being used for more indications and in more patients. To our knowledge#these three cases are unique in terms of axitinib#sunitinib#and pazopanib-related IHA.

Tumor hypoxia and role of hypoxia-inducible factor in oral cancer.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer (HNC) is one of the most frequent malignancies in Asian males with a poor prognosis. Apart from well-known prognostic indicators, markers of tumor hypoxia can help us predict response to treatment and survival. METHODS: A review of the literature on the present evidence and potential clinical importance of tumor hypoxia in head and neck cancer was carried out. The data obtained from the literature search is presented as a narrative review. RESULTS: The literature shows possible associations between prognosis and low tumor oxygenation. Intermediate hypoxia biomarkers like HIF-1, GLUT-1, miRNA, and lactate, can help in predicting the response to therapy and survival as their altered expression is related to prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoxia is common in HNC and can be detected by use of biomarkers. The tumors that show expression of hypoxia biomarkers have poor prognosis except for patients with human papilloma virus-associated or VHL-associated cancers. Therapeutic targeting of hypoxia is emerging; however, it is still in its nascent stage, with increasing clinical trials hypoxia is set to emerge as an attractive therapeutic target in HNC.

Real-world outcomes of avelumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japan: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study (J-DART).

OBJECTIVES: In the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved in patients treated with first-line avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib. Here we evaluate real-world outcomes with first-line avelumab plus axitinib in Japanese patients with aRCC. METHODS: In this multicenter, noninterventional, retrospective study, clinical data from patients with aRCC treated with first-line avelumab plus axitinib between December 2019 and December 2020 in Japan were reviewed. Endpoints included ORR and PFS per investigator assessment, and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD). RESULTS: Data from 48 patients (median age, 69 years) from 12 sites were analyzed. Median follow-up was 10.4 months (range, 2.6-16.5), and median duration of treatment was 7.4 months (range, 0.5-16.5). International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk category was favorable, intermediate, or poor in 16.7%, 54.2%, and 29.2% of patients, respectively. The ORR was 48.8% (95% CI, 33.3%-64.5%), including complete response in 3/43 patients (7.0%). Thirteen patients (27.1%) had disease progression or died, and median PFS was 15.3 months (95% CI, 9.7 months - not estimable). At data cutoff, 24 patients (50.0%) were still receiving avelumab plus axitinib, and median TTD was 15.2 months (95% CI, 7.4 months - not estimable). Three patients (6.3%) received high-dose corticosteroid treatment for immune-related adverse events, and 8 (16.7%) received treatment for infusion-related reactions. CONCLUSIONS: We report the first real-world evidence of the effectiveness and tolerability of first-line avelumab plus axitinib in Japanese patients with aRCC. Results were comparable with the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial.

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.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

Optimal sequencing of the first- and second-line target therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: based on nationally representative data analysis from the Korean National Health Insurance System.

BACKGROUND: The authors intend to compare the effects of each targeted therapy (TT) in the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) using big data based on the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS) and determine the optimal treatment sequence. METHODS: Data on the medical use of patients with kidney cancer were obtained from the NHIS database from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2020. Patient variables included age, sex, income level, place of residence, prescribing department, and duration from diagnosis to the prescription date. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) for each drug and sequencing. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) according to age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index based on the primary TTs. RESULTS: After 1:1 PSM, the sunitinib (SUN) (n = 1,214) and pazopanib (PAZ) (n = 1,214) groups showed a well-matched distribution across the entire cohort. In the primary treatment group, PAZ had lower OS than SUN (HR, 1.167; p = 0.0015). In the secondary treatment group, axitinib (AXI) had more favorable OS than cabozantinib (CAB) (HR, 0.735; p = 0.0118), and everolimus had more adverse outcomes than CAB (HR, 1.544; p < 0.0001). In the first to second TT sequencing, SUN-AXI had the highest OS; however, there was no statistically significant difference when compared with PAZ-AXI, which was the second highest (HR, 0.876; p = 0.3312). The 5-year survival rate was calculated in the following order: SUN-AXI (51.44%), PAZ-AXI (47.12%), SUN-CAB (43.59%), and PAZ-CAB (34.28%). When the four sequencing methods were compared, only SUN-AXI versus PAZ-CAB (p = 0.003) and PAZ-AXI versus PAZ-CAB (p = 0.017) were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based RWD analysis of Korean patients with mRCC, SUN-AXI sequencing was shown to be the most effective among the first to second TT sequencing methods in treatment, with a relative survival advantage over other sequencing combinations. To further support the results of this study, risk-stratified analysis is needed.

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).

Avelumab plus Axitinib for the Treatment of Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease Undergoing Dialysis: A Retrospective Case Series and Literature Review.

Combination therapies of an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a molecular targeted agent are widely accepted as an appropriate initial systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but there is little published evidence regarding the efficacy of this approach in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Here, we report three patients who were undergoing hemodialysis for ESRD whose metastatic RCC was successfully treated using avelumab plus axitinib. The patients were a 67-year-old man with swollen lymph nodes, a 65-year-old man with pleural dissemination, and a 71-year-old man with lung nodules and an infra-diaphragmatic nodule. They were administered a combination of avelumab plus axitinib as their initial systemic therapy following definitive surgical therapy. The best response of three patients was graded as partial response. No severe adverse events were identified. This is the first report of the use of combination therapy consisting of avelumab plus axitinib in patients with ESRD undergoing hemodialysis. We found that this combination was useful in such patients.

A comparative study on nivolumab and axitinib as secondary treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A multi-institutional retrospective study in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: When primary treatment has been inadequate, nivolumab and axitinib are often used as a secondary treatments for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, there have been few reports comparing the efficacy and safety of these drugs. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 58 patients treated with nivolumab and 57 patients treated with axitinib as secondary treatment between April 2013 and December 2019. We then assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of the treatments in both groups. RESULTS: The most common primary therapy was sunitinib (61.7%). Both nivolumab and axitinib groups showed no significant differences in terms of the objective response rate and disease control rate (p = 0.280 and p = 0.518, respectively). Importantly, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) seemed to be similar in patients treated with nivolumab and axitinib (p = 0.527 and p = 0.266, respectively), irrespective of the objective response to primary therapy. Furthermore, a Cox proportional hazards model showed that pretreatment Karnofsky Performance Status was significantly associated with PFS and OS. Although the incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the patients treated with axitinib, there was no significant difference in time to treatment failure between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab and axitinib showed similar clinical benefits as secondary treatment in patients with mRCC; thus, they should be an option in sequential therapy following treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Future studies and feasible therapeutic biomarkers would help predict the clinical response to TKIs or immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with mRCC.

Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab and axitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Real-world experience in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes following combined treatment with pembrolizumab and axitinib as first-line therapy for patients with advanced RCC. METHODS: This study retrospectively included 47 consecutive Japanese patients who were diagnosed with advanced RCC and subsequently received pembrolizumab and axitinib between February 2020 and January 2022. Efficacy and safety of this combined therapy in these patients were comprehensively investigated. RESULTS: The 47 included patients were classified into the following 3 groups by the IMDC system: favorable, 7 (14.9%); intermediate, 24 (51.1%) and poor, 16 (34.0%). Responses to this combined therapy in the 47 patients were as follows: CR, 8 (17.0%); PR, 20 (42.6%); SD, 16 (34.0%) and PD, 3 (6.4%); thus, the ORR was 59.6%. During the observation period, disease progression and death occurred in 19 (40.4%) and 9 (19.1%) patients, respectively, and the median PFS and OS were 18 months and not reached, respectively. Univariate analyses identified the following significant predictors for poor prognostic outcomes: lack of nephrectomy, liver metastasis, bone metastasis, elevated CRP and IMDC poor risk for PFS; and lack of nephrectomy, non-CCC and elevated CRP for OS. AEs and those corresponding to grade ≥ 3 occurred in all (100%) and 30 (63.8%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study focusing on real-world outcomes following pembrolizumab and axitinib for treatment-naïve advanced Japanese RCC patients, which showed the efficacy and safety of this combined therapy being similar or even superior to those in clinical trial.

Axitinib Rechallenge Restores the Anticancer Effect after Nivolumab: A Case Report.

The immune checkpoint inhibitor/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ICI/TKI) combination treatment is currently the first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, its efficacy beyond the third-line setting is expected to be relatively poor, and high-grade toxicities can develop by prior exposure to multiple drugs, resulting in a relatively poor performance in patients. Determining the best treatment regimen and sequence remains difficult and requires further investigation in patients with mRCC. In this study, two cases of mRCC, who failed several lines of TKI and nivolumab but exhibited a good anticancer effect after rechallenging with axitinib, are described. Both patients had a faster time to best response and better progression-free survival (PFS) than during previous treatments. Moreover, the axitinib dose could be reduced to 2.5 mg daily when used in combination with nivolumab while continuing to exert an impressive anticancer effect. To determine the cytotoxic effect, we performed a lymphocyte activation test and found that the level of granzyme B released by cytotoxic T lymphocytes and natural killer cells was higher when axitinib was combined with nivolumab. To evaluate this result, a bioinformatics approach was used to analyze the PRISM database. In conclusion, based on the results of a lymphocyte activation test and PD-1 expression, our findings indicate that sequential therapy with axitinib rechallenge after nivolumab resistance is reasonable for the treatment of mRCC.

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

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

Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib for Metastatic Papillary and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: NEMESIA (Non Clear MEtaStatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Pembrolizumab Axitinib) Study, a Subgroup Analysis of I-RARE Observational Study (Meet-URO 23a).

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) represents a heterogeneous histological group which is 20-25% of those with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with nccRCC have limited therapeutic options due to their exclusion from phase III randomized trials. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness and tolerability of pembrolizumabaxitinib combination in chromophobe and papillary metastatic RCC (mRCC) patients enrolled in the I-RARE (Italian Registry on rAre genitor-uRinary nEoplasms) observational ongoing study (Meet-URO 23). Baseline characteristics, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicities were retrospectively and prospectively collected from nccRCC patients treated in 14 Italian referral centers adhering to the Meet-Uro group, from December 2020 to April 2022. Only patients with chromophobe and papillary histology were considered eligible for the present pre-specified analysis. There were 32 eligible patients who received pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatment, of whom 13 (40%) had chromophobe histology and 19 (60%) were classified as papillary RCC. The DCR was 78.1% whereas ORR was 43.7% (11 patients achieved stable disease and 14 patients obtained partial response: 9/19 papillary, 5/13 chromophobe). Six patients (18.7%) were primary refractory. Median PFS was 10.8 months (95%CI 1.7-11.5). Eleven patients (34.3%) interrupted the full treatment due to immune-related adverse events (irAEs): G3 hepatitis (n = 5), G3 hypophisitis (n = 1), G3 diarrhea (n = 1), G3 pancreatitis (n = 1), G3 asthenia (n = 1). Twelve patients (37.5%) temporarily interrupted axitinib only due to persistent G2 hand-foot syndrome or G2 hypertension. Pembrolizumab-axitinib combination could be an active and feasible first-line treatment option for patients with papillary or chromophobe mRCC.

[Mechanism of nuclear protein 1 in the resistance to axitinib in clear cell renal cell carcinoma].

OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential mechanism of resistance to axitinib in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), with a view to expanding the understanding of axitinib resistance, facilitating the design of more specific treatment options, and improving the treatment effectiveness and survival prognosis of patients. METHODS: By exploring the half maximum inhibitory concentration (IC50) of axitinib on ccRCC cell lines 786-O and Caki-1, cell lines resistant to axitinib were constructed by repeatedly stimulated with axitinib at this concentration for 30 cycles in vitro. Cell lines that were not treated by axitinib were sensitive cell lines. The phenotypic differences of cell proliferation and apoptosis levels between drug resistant and sensitive lines were tested. Genes that might be involved in the drug resistance process were screened from the differentially expressed genes that were co-upregulated in the two drug resistant lines by transcriptome sequencing. The expression level of the target gene in the drug resistant lines was verified by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and Western blot (WB). The expression differences of the target gene in ccRCC tumor tissues and adjacent tissues were analyzed in the Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis (GEPIA) public database, and the impact of the target gene on the prognosis of ccRCC patients was analyzed in the Kaplan-Meier Plotter (K-M Plotter) database. After knocking down the target gene in the drug resistant lines using RNA interference by lentivirus vector, the phenotypic differences of the cell lines were tested again. WB was used to detect the levels of apoptosis-related proteins in the different treated cell lines to find molecular pathways that might lead to drug resistance. RESULTS: Cell lines 786-O-R and Caki-1-R resistant to axitinib were successfully constructed in vitro, and their IC50 were significantly higher than those of the sensitive cell lines (10.99 µmol/L, P < 0.01; 11.96 µmol/L, P < 0.01, respectively). Cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8) assay, colony formation, and 5-ethynyl-2 '-deoxyuridine (EdU) assay showed that compared with the sensitive lines, the proliferative ability of the resistant lines decreased, but apoptosis staining showed a significant decrease in the level of cell apoptosis of the resistant lines (P < 0.01). Although resistant to axitinib, the resistant lines had no obvious new replicated cells in the environment of 20 µmol/L axitinib. Nuclear protein 1 (NUPR1) gene was screened by transcriptome sequencing, and its RNA (P < 0.0001) and protein expression levels significantly increased in the resistant lines. Database analysis showed that NUPR1 was significantly overexpressed in ccRCC tumor tissue (P < 0.05); the ccRCC patients with higher expression ofNUPR1had a worse survival prognosis (P < 0.001). Apoptosis staining results showed that knockdown ofNUPR1inhibited the anti-apoptotic ability of the resistant lines to axitinib (786-O, P < 0.01; Caki-1, P < 0.05). WB results showed that knocking downNUPR1decreased the protein level of B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL2), increased the protein level of BCL2-associated X protein (BAX), decreased the protein level of pro-caspase3, and increased the level of cleaved-caspase3 in the resistant lines after being treated with axitinib. CONCLUSION: ccRCC cell lines reduce apoptosis through theNUPR1 -BAX/ BCL2 -caspase3 pathway, which is involved in the process of resistance to axitinib.

The Potential of Transforming Growth Factor-beta Inhibitor and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Inhibitor as Therapeutic Agents for Uterine Leiomyoma.

Background: Uterine leiomyoma is the most common benign tumor in women of reproductive age, and it can cause infertility. The growth of uterine leiomyoma is mediated by various steroids and growth factors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the expression of various growth factors in uterine leiomyoma. Additionally, comparing the effects of existing medication and specific growth factor inhibitors on leiomyoma and the normal myometrium, we aimed to see the potential of transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-ß) inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors as therapeutic drugs for uterine leiomyoma. Methods: This in vitro study included uterine leiomyoma samples from 12 patients who underwent hysterectomy by laparoscopy or laparotomy at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital between May 2016 and March 2018. Normal myometrium and uterine leiomyoma tissue were obtained from each patient and the expression of growth factors was compared using immunohistochemical staining. After the primary culture of normal myometrial and leiomyoma cells, cell viability was evaluated following treatment with 100 nM ulipristal acetate (UPA) and mifepristone for 48 h. Western blot analysis was performed to determine the protein expression of each growth factor. Cell viability was determined following treatment with a 10-µM TGF-ß inhibitor (LY364947) and a 5-µM VEGF inhibitor (axitinib) for 24 h in cultured normal myometrium and leiomyoma cells. Results: Immunohistochemical staining revealed the significantly higher intensity of TGF-ß and VEGF in the leiomyoma tissue than in the normal myometrium (P < 0.05). Mifepristone treatment decreased VEGF expression by 62% in the leiomyoma cells (P < 0.05). According to the cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8) assay, cell viability was decreased after UPA, mifepristone, TGF-ß1 inhibitor, and VEGF inhibitor treatments in the normal myometrium and leiomyoma tissue. The effects of the TGF-ß1 inhibitor significantly differed between normal myometrium and leiomyoma tissue, with a greater decrease in cell survival in the leiomyoma tissue (P < 0.05). Post-hoc analysis showed that the TGF-ß1 and VEGF inhibitors had a greater inhibitory effect on leiomyoma tissue compared with that of UPA. Conclusion: TGF-ß and VEGF inhibitors significantly decreased the viability of uterine leiomyoma cells, showing stronger effects than the conventional drug, UPA. TGF-ß1 inhibitors affect both leiomyoma tissue and the normal uterus; thus, targeted local treatment rather than systemic treatment should be considered.