Search

Background: Treatment of high-risk localized prostate cancer remains inadequate. The authors performed a phase 2 multicenter trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel plus bevacizumab before radical prostatectomy.Methods: Eligibility included any of the following: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/mL or PSA velocity >2 ng/mL/y, cT3 disease, any biopsy Gleason score 8 to 10, and Gleason score 7 with T3 disease by endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 1.5 T. Also, those with ≥50% biopsy cores involved and either Gleason score 7, PSA >10, or cT2 disease were eligible. Patients were treated with docetaxel 70 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 6 cycles and bevacizumab 15 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 5 cycles. The primary endpoint was partial response by endorectal MRI.Results: Forty-one patients were treated. Median age was 55 years (range, 40-66 years). Baseline characteristics included: median PSA, 10.1 ng/mL; cT2, 49%, cT3, 32%; and Gleason score 8 to 10, 73%. Thirty-eight of 41 (93%) patients completed all 6 cycles. Grade ≥3 adverse events were rare, although 3 of 41 (7%) experienced febrile neutropenia. Twelve patients (29%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16%-45%) achieved a >50% reduction in tumor volume, and 9 patients (22%; 95% CI, 11%-38%) achieved a >50% post-treatment decline in PSA. Thirty-seven of the 41 patients underwent radical prostatectomy; there were no complete pathologic responses.Conclusions: Neoadjuvant docetaxel and bevacizumab is safe, and results in reductions in both tumor volume and serum PSA, in men with high-risk localized prostate cancer. The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in prostate cancer, and perioperative antiangiogenic therapy in general, requires further elucidation through ongoing and planned trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Estrogens play a pivotal role in the development of breast cancer. Endocrine therapy based on estrogen blockade is a well-established treatment in hormone-dependent breast cancer. Tamoxifen citrate has long been considered the 'gold standard' due to its relative safety and efficacy. Aromatase inhibitors are anti-estrogen agents that target specifically the aromatase enzyme, which is the final step in the estrogen production. The first use of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer was associated with adverse effects such as rash, drowsiness, and adrenal-gland suppression. Newer third-generation agents are emerging as potential alternatives to tamoxifen, associating clinical efficacy with a more favorable safety profile. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to review the mechanisms of actions pharmacology, adverse effects, and clinical applications of the aromatase inhibitors available in the United States. METHODS: The terms breast cancer or neoplasia, aromatase, aromatase inhibitors, third-generation, endocrine therapy, and antiestrogens were used to search MEDLINE for English-language studies published between 1966 and April 2004. A parallel search was performed at the corresponding Web site of each of the aromatase inhibitors available in the United States. Identified publications relevant to the article objectives were selected. RESULTS: Anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane are the 3 commercially available aromatase inhibitors approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women. They have been used in several clinical scenarios, including advanced and early disease and chemoprevention, and in the neoadjuvant setting. There is evidence that aromatase inhibitors are more effective and tolerable than tamoxifen in advanced breast cancer and in the neoadjuvant setting. Based on the results of a large, randomized trial, their use in early disease and in chemoprevention is also promising. Aromatase inhibitors appear safe; however, the long-term safety profile is still unknown, especially concerning bone metabolism. CONCLUSION: Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are a new treatment modality in estrogen and/or progesterone-receptor positive breast cancer. Although they are replacing the 'classic' antiestrogen agents used in metastatic breast cancer, their benefit in early disease and as chemopreventive agents is not completely clear. Ongoing clinical studies should become available within the next few years and will provide additional recommendations for their use in patients with breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sunitinib is a standard first-line therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. in an expanded-access study, sunitinib has demonstrated clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile in a population of patients that is representative of those seen in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Daptomycin is a lipopeptide antimicrobial used for the treatment of aerobic gram-positive skin and soft tissue infections. We describe a patient with acute myeloid leukemia whose febrile neutropenia was treated with daptomycin and who later developed daptomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium infection. Defervescence and negative blood cultures ensued after treatment with linezolid. Guidelines for testing daptomycin susceptibillities of enterococci include breakpoints only for vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecalis, making interpretation of minimum inhibitory concentrations for common clinical infections difficult. No enterococcal cross-resistance has been reported among daptomycin, linezolid, or quinupristin-dalfopristin, and these agents may be viable alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Brachytherapy for prostate cancer can be technically challenging in men with small prostates (≤20 cc), but it is unknown whether their outcomes are different than those of men with larger prostates.Methods and Materials: We studied 6,416 men treated with brachytherapy in one of 21 community-based practices. Cox regression and Fine and Gray's regression were used to determine whether volume ≤20 cc was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) or prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), respectively, after adjustment for other known prognostic factors.Results: 443 patients (6.9%) had a prostate volume ≤20 cc. After a median follow-up of 2.91 years (interquartile range, 1.06-4.79), volume ≤20 cc was associated with a significantly higher risk of ACM (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.33 [95% CI 1.08-1.65], p = 0.0085) with 3-year estimates of ACM for ≤20 cc vs. >20 cc of 13.0% vs. 6.9% (p = 0.028). Only 23 men (0.36%) have died of prostate cancer, and no difference was seen in PCSM by volume (p = 0.4).Conclusion: Men with small prostates at the time of implant had a 33% higher risk of ACM, and the underlying cause of this remains uncertain. No increase in PCSM was observed in men with volume ≤20cc, suggesting that a small prostate should not in itself be a contraindication for brachytherapy, but inasmuch as absolute rates of PCSM were small, further follow-up will be needed to confirm this finding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To report the relative incidence of the perceived reduction in penile size across prostate cancer treatment modalities and to describe its effect on quality of life and treatment regret.Materials and Methods: The incidence of patient complaints about reduced penile size was calculated for 948 men in the Comprehensive, Observational, Multicenter, Prostate Adenocarcinoma (COMPARE) registry who experienced biochemical failure (per registry definition) and were assessed a median of 5.53 years after prostatectomy or radiotherapy (RT) consisting of either external beam RT or brachytherapy, with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors associated with treatment regret and interference with emotional relationships.Results: Of 948 men, 25 (2.63%) complained of a reduced penile size. The incidence of reduced penile size stratified by treatment was 3.73% for surgery (19 of 510), 2.67% for RT plus ADT (6 of 225), and 0% for RT without ADT (0 of 213). The surgery (P=.004) and RT plus ADT (P=.016) groups had significantly more shortened penis complaints than the RT alone group. The rate of a shortened penis after surgery and after RT plus ADT was similar (P=.47). On multivariate analysis adjusting for age, treatment type, and baseline comorbidity, a perceived reduction in penile size was associated with interference with close emotional relationships (odds ratio 2.36, 95% confidence interval 1.02-8.26; P=.04) and increased treatment regret (odds ratio 3.37, 95% confidence interval 1.37-8.26; P=.0079).Conclusion: Complaints about a reduced penile size were more common with RT plus ADT or surgery than RT alone and were associated with greater interference with close emotional relationships and increased treatment regret. Physicians should discuss the possibility of this rarely mentioned side effect with their patients to help them make more informed treatment choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved significantly in recent years, leading to improved outcomes. The aim of this review is to provide clinicians with a practical guide for selecting first- and second-line treatments on the basis of current evidence., Methods: We critically evaluated systemic treatment strategies for mRCC. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase, alongside manual searches of guidelines and conference proceedings up to October 2024. A narrative review was performed to reach a consensus, with voting used to resolve differing opinions among authors., Key Findings and Limitations: First-line treatment options include immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Four combination regimens have been approved internationally. Owing to the lack of head-to-head trials and standardized biomarkers, treatment decisions rely on factors such as International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score, functional status, safety profiles, sarcomatoid features, use of immunosuppressive drugs, and need for immediate response. Despite advances, many patients will experience disease progression on ICI-based therapy, necessitating further treatment. The need for standardized second-line approaches remains unmet. TKIs, alone or with everolimus, show promising efficacy, while HIF2a inhibitors offer newer options with a favorable toxicity profile. Rechallenge with ICIs after early progression is not recommended., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: For optimal mRCC treatment selection, clinicians must carefully balance efficacy, toxicity, and patient preferences, especially when transitioning between first- and second-line therapies, to provide individualized care., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: YYJ reports consulting fees and travel funding from AbbVie, Amerisource Bergen, Ask-Gene Pharma, Arcus Biosciences, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Geneos Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Imedex, Imugene, Inspirna, Lynx Health, Merck, Merck Serono, Mersana Therapeutics, Michael J Hennessy Associates, Paradigm Medical Communications, PeerView Institute, Pfizer, Seagen, Silverback Therapeutics, and Zymeworks; funds for research support from AstraZeneca, Arcus Biosciences, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cycle For Survival, US Department of Defense, Eli Lilly, Fred's Team, Genentech/Roche, Inspirna, Merck, NCI, and Transcenta; and stock options from Inspirna. CR reports consultation fees from BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, SunPharma, and Pfizer, and is the co-founder and shareholder of RiboNexus. SP reports consultation or advisory roles for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, BioNTech, BerGenBio, Bicycle Therapeutics, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F Star, Foundation Medicine, Genmab, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Hutchmed, Illumina, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos, Qlucore, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Mirati, Nuvation Bio, Nykode Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, Pharma Mar, Promontory Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Zymeworks; has done talks in a company's organised public event for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, GSK, Illumina, Ipsen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; and is a receipt of grants or research supports as a principal investigator in trials (institutional financial support for clinical trials) sponsored by Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, iTeos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati, Pharma Mar, Promontory Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, and Seattle Genetics. TP reports consulting or advisory roles for Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Roche, Exelixis, MSD, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, Eisai, Mashup, Merck, and Incyte; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Ipsen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Laboratories, Astellas Pharma, BMS, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Seagen, Merck Serono, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, and Mashup; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai. TKC reports institutional or personal, paid, or unpaid support for research, advisory boards, consultancy, or honoraria over the past 5 years, ongoing or not, from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Nuscan, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, CCO, and KidneyCan) outside the submitted work; institutional patents filed on molecular alterations and immunotherapy response/toxicity, and ctDNA; equity from Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio, CureResponse, InnDura Therapeutics, and Primium; is a member of committees for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Genitourinary Cancers Steering Committee, the American Society of Clinical Oncology–European Society for Medical Oncology, ACCRU, and KidneyCan; medical writing and editorial assistance support that might have been funded by communications companies in part; is supported in part by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE (2P50CA101942–16) and programme 5P30CA006516–56, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, Pan Mass Challenge, the Hinda and Arthur Marcus Fund, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Background: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and durable response benefits versus sunitinib (SUN) with long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated analyses with 8 years of median follow-up from CheckMate 214., Patients and Methods: Patients with aRCC (N = 1096) were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × four doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. The endpoints included OS, independent radiology review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and IRRC-assessed objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) patients., Results: With 8 years (99.1 months) of median follow-up, the hazard ratio [HR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.72 (0.62-0.83) in ITT patients, 0.69 (0.59-0.81) in I/P patients, and 0.82 (0.60-1.13) in FAV patients. PFS probabilities at 90 months were 22.8% versus 10.8% (ITT), 25.4% versus 8.5% (I/P), and 12.7% versus 17.0% (FAV), respectively. ORR with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 39.5% versus 33.0% (ITT), 42.4% versus 27.5% (I/P), and 29.6% versus 51.6% (FAV). Rates of complete response were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (ITT, 12.0% versus 3.5%; I/P, 11.8% versus 2.6%; FAV, 12.8% versus 6.5%). The median duration of response (95% CI) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 76.2 versus 25.1 months [59.1 months-not estimable (NE) versus 19.8-33.2 months] in ITT patients, 82.8 versus 19.8 months (54.1 months-NE versus 16.4-26.4 months) in I/P patients, and 61.5 versus 33.2 months (27.8 months-NE versus 24.8-51.4 months) in FAV patients. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. Exploratory post hoc analyses are reported for FAV patients, those receiving subsequent therapy based on their response status, clinical subpopulations, and adverse events over time., Conclusions: Superior survival, durable response benefits, and a manageable safety profile were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 8 years, the longest phase III follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in aRCC., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

While large-scale functional genetic screens have uncovered numerous cancer dependencies, rare cancers are poorly represented in such efforts and the landscape of dependencies in many rare cancers remains obscure. We performed genome-scale CRISPR knockout screens in an exemplar rare cancer, TFE3 -translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC), revealing previously unknown tRCC-selective dependencies in pathways related to mitochondrial biogenesis, oxidative metabolism, and kidney lineage specification. To generalize to other rare cancers in which experimental models may not be readily available, we employed machine learning to infer gene dependencies in a tumor or cell line based on its transcriptional profile. By applying dependency prediction to alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS), a distinct rare cancer also driven by TFE3 translocations, we discovered and validated that MCL1 represents a dependency in ASPS but not tRCC. Finally, we applied our model to predict gene dependencies in tumors from the TCGA (11,373 tumors; 28 lineages) and multiple additional rare cancers (958 tumors across 16 types, including 13 distinct subtypes of kidney cancer), nominating potentially actionable vulnerabilities in several poorly-characterized cancer types. Our results couple unbiased functional genetic screening with a predictive model to establish a landscape of candidate vulnerabilities across cancers, including several rare cancers currently lacking in potential targets., Competing Interests: Aspects of this work are the subject of a pending patent application (A.S., S.R.V.). S.R.V.: has consulted for Jnana Therapeutics within the past 3 years; receives research support from Bayer. T.K.C. reports institutional and personal paid or unpaid support for research, advisory board participation, consultancy, and honoraria within the past 5 years from Alkermes, Arcus Bio, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Neomorph, Nuscan and Precede Bio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, and Tempest and equity in Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio, CureResponse, InnDura Therapeutics, and Primium.

Purpose: International medical graduates (IMGs) are an essential component of the oncology workforce in the United States, comprising a third of all practicing oncologists and almost half of hematology/oncology fellows. In this article, we discuss the contributions of IMGs in the US oncology workforce, review unique challenges faced by IMGs, and propose potential solutions to overcome these challenges., Methods: ASCO's IMG Community of Practice was established with the mission to connect, mentor, guide, raise awareness, and overcome the challenges unique to IMGs interested in pursuing medical oncology in the United States. The content of this article is based on discussions at the IMG Community of Practice meetings at ASCO's 2023 and 2024 Annual Meetings., Results: IMGs bring an inherent diversity of thought and experience to the oncology workforce. They provide high-quality, culture- and language-concordant care to a diverse population of patients with cancer. However, IMGs in oncology face significant hardships throughout their careers, including visa-related restrictions, psychosocial and cultural struggles, as well as differential treatment while applying for residency and fellowship training, and early career positions. Greater awareness of these challenges among the members of the hematology/oncology community, along with institutional and individual efforts to support IMGs, is warranted., Conclusion: We encourage oncology professionals and institutions to join our efforts in recognizing the unique paths of IMGs and providing support and advocacy to maximize the potential of IMGs in the US oncology workforce.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are cornerstones of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, optimal treatment sequencing after progression is unknown. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes of tivozanib-nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed following one or two lines of therapy in the post-ICI setting., Methods: TiNivo-2 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 190 sites across 16 countries, in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and progression during or after one to two previous lines of therapy (including one ICI) were randomised 1:1 to tivozanib (0·89 mg per day, orally) plus nivolumab (480 mg every 4 weeks, intravenously) or tivozanib (1·34 mg per day, orally). Randomisation was stratified by immediate previous therapy (ICI or non-ICI) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to first documentation of objective progressive disease according to RECIST 1·1 or death from any cause, whichever came first, by independent radiology review. Efficacy was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received one or more doses of the study drug. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04987203) and is active and not recruiting., Findings: From Nov 4, 2021, to June 16, 2023, 343 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib-nivolumab (n=171) or tivozanib monotherapy (n=172). Median follow-up was 12·0 months. Median PFS was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-7·4) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 7·4 months (5·6-9·2) with tivozanib monotherapy (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·84-1·43; p=0·49). Among those with an ICI as their immediate previous therapy (n=244), median PFS was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6-9·6) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 9·2 months (7·4-10·0) with tivozanib monotherapy. With non-ICIs as the most recent therapy, lower median PFS was observed, with no difference between groups (tivozanib-nivolumab 3·7 months [95% CI 2·7-5·4] and with tivozanib monotherapy 3·7 months [1·9-7·2]). Serious adverse events occurred in 54 (32%) of 168 patients receiving tivozanib-nivolumab and 64 (37%) of 171 patients receiving tivozanib monotherapy. One (<1%) treatment-related death occurred (tivozanib group)., Interpretation: These data further support that ICI rechallenge should be discouraged in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, these data suggest that tivozanib monotherapy has efficacy in the post-ICI setting., Funding: Aveo Pharmaceuticals., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TKC reports institutional and personal paid or unpaid support for research, advisory board participation, consultancy, and honoraria within the past 5 years from Alkermes, Arcus Bio, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Neomorph, Nuscan and Precede Bio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, and Tempest and equity in Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio, CureResponse, InnDura Therapeutics, and Primium. LA reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Astellas, Merck, MSD, Janssen, Eisai, and Amgen and support for travel expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Ipsen, and Pfizer. PB reports grants or contracts from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck, Gilead, Janssen, AAA Pharmaceutical, and Bayer; consulting fees from Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Gilead, AAA Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Gilead, AAA Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; and reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Gilead, AAA Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and AstraZeneca. SE reports consulting fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Kephren and support for attending meetings and travel from MSD, Chugai, Pfizer, and Janssen. JM-C reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas, Eisai, Adacap, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Adium, and Asofarma; support for attending meetings and travel from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Ipsen, Pfizer, Astellas, Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD. BG reports research funding grants from AbbVie, Accutar Biotechnology, Arcus Biosciences, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, AVEO Oncology, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eikon Therapeutics, Exelixis, Roche and Genentech, Flare Therapeutics, Harbour BioMed, IDEAYA Biosciences, Janssen, Janux Therapeutics, Jubilant Therapeutics, Kineta, Kinnate BioPharma, Loxo, Mink Therapeutics, Nuvation Bio, Profound Bio, Takeda Therapeutics, Teon Therapeutics, Tmunity Therapeutics, Xencor, and Zenshine and consulting fees from AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adicent Therapeutics, AIQ Global, Amgen, Arcus Biosciences, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, AVEO Oncology, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Rondo Therapeutics, Sanofi–Aventis, Seagen, and Xencor. PB reports honoraria from UroToday; consulting or advising fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Aveo, Merck, Ipson, and Dendreon; speakers bureau funding from AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer and Astellas, and Merck; and research funding from Exelixis, Aveo, Blue Earth, Pfizer, and Merck. AB reports honoraria from Gilead Sciences, Cardinal Health, Eisai, and Natera; consulting or advising fees from EMD Serono, Seattle Genetics, and Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer; speakers bureau funds from Eisai; and research funding from Merck, EMD Serono, Natera, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb and Celgene, Genentech and Roche, and Aveo. MTB reports consulting fees, payment or honoraria, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Bristol Myers Squibb. HM reports honoraria from EMD Serono and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Arcus Bioscience, Apollomics, Nektar, RevImmune, HUYA Bioscience International, Aveo, Xencor, and Pfizer; and travel accommodations or expenses from Aveo, Seagen, Bayer, and Genentech. RR reports honoraria from Ipsen, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Advanced Accelerator Applications, and Eisai; consulting or advisory fees from Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Ipsen, and MSD; and travel accommodations or expenses from Ipsen, MSD Oncology, and Janssen. RRM reports consulting or advisory roles for Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelixis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion, Calithera, AstraZeneca, Myovant, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento Therapeutics, Aveo, Seattle Genetics, Telix, Eli Lilly, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Ambrx, Arcus Biosciences, Sumitomo Pharma Oncology, Eisai, and NeoMorph and research funding from Bayer, Tempus, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Oncternal Therapeutics, and Artera. AC-R reports honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from OncLive and MJH Life Sciences, ASCO Direct, Exelixis, Medical Oncology Association of Southern California, EPG Health, Eisai Co, Aveo, and Seagen. HH reports grants or contracts for clinical trial support from Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Agenus, Hoosier, and Aveo and advisory consulting fees from Eisai, Aveo, Pfizer, and Bristol Myers Squibb. DYCH reports consultancy fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, Eisai, and Merck and research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ipsen. EB reports funding for the provision of study materials, medical writing, or article processing charges from Aveo Oncology and stock or stock options from Autolus. KEB reports grants funding from Bristol Myers Squibb–Lung Cancer Foundation of America–International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Aravive, Pionyr, and Arsenal Bio; consulting fees from Aravive, Aveo, Alpine Bioscience, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Adicet, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Eisai, Merck, Nimbus, and Xencor; and honoraria funding from Merck. BAM reports grants to his institution from Aveo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Gilead, and Pfizer; consulting fees from Arcus, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Gilead, Lily, and Pfizer; payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Targeted Oncology, Dava Oncology, Aptitude Health, and Curio; and patents planned, issued, or pending with Gilead. RJM reports consulting fees from Aveo, Merck, Exelixis, and Takeda, grants or contracts from Pfizer, Genentech and Roche, Eisai, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Exelixis; and data safety monitoring and advisory board participation fees from Incyte. RI reports no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) is a rare, female-predominant cancer driven by a fusion between the transcription factor binding to IGHM enhancer 3 (TFE3) gene on chromosome Xp11.2 and a partner gene on either chromosome X (chrX) or an autosome. It remains unknown what types of rearrangements underlie TFE3 fusions, whether fusions can arise from both the active (chrXa) and inactive X (chrXi) chromosomes, and whether TFE3 fusions from chrXi translocations account for the female predominance of tRCC. To address these questions, we performed haplotype-specific analyses of chrX rearrangements in tRCC whole genomes. We show that TFE3 fusions universally arise as reciprocal translocations and that oncogenic TFE3 fusions can arise from chrXi:autosomal translocations. Female-specific chrXi:autosomal translocations result in a 2:1 female-to-male ratio of TFE3 fusions involving autosomal partner genes and account for the female predominance of tRCC. Our results highlight how X chromosome genetics constrains somatic chrX alterations and underlies cancer sex differences., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests S.R.V. has consulted for Jnana Therapeutics within the past 3 years and receives research support from Bayer. C.-Z.Z. is a co-founder, consultant, and equity holder of Pillar Biosciences, a for-profit company specialized in assay development for targeted DNA sequencing. C.B. is currently an employee of Inocras Inc., a for-profit company specialized in whole-genome sequencing of cancer and rare diseases. T.K.C. reports institutional and/or personal, paid and/or unpaid support for research, advisory boards, consultancy, and/or honoraria past 5 years, ongoing or not, from Alkermes, Arcus Bio, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Neomorph, Nuscan/PrecedeBio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, CCO, and others), and outside the submitted work; has institutional patents filed on molecular alterations and immunotherapy response/toxicity and ctDNA; holds equity in Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio, CureResponse, InnDura Therapeutics, and Primium; and is on the committees of NCCN, GU Steering Committee, ASCO (BOD 6-2024-, ESMO, ACCRU, and KidneyCan (medical writing and editorial assistance support may have been funded by Communications companies in part); and has mentored several non-US citizens on research projects with potential funding (in part) from non-US sources/Foreign Components. The institution (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) may have received additional independent funding of drug companies or/and royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter. D.J.E. received research funding to institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardiff Oncology, MiNK Therapeutics, Novartis, Sanofi, and Puma. Discounted research sequencing from Foundation Medicine., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Histologic transformation to small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a mechanism of treatment resistance in patients with advanced oncogene-driven lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) that currently requires histologic review for diagnosis. Herein, we sought to develop an epigenomic cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based approach to noninvasively detect small cell transformation in patients with EGFR mutant (EGFRm) LUAD., Experimental Design: To characterize the epigenomic landscape of transformed (t)SCLC relative to LUAD and de novo SCLC, we performed chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) to profile the histone modifications H3K27ac, H3K4me3, and H3K27me3; methylated DNA immunoprecipitation sequencing (MeDIP-seq); assay for transposase-accessible chromatin sequencing; and RNA sequencing on 26 lung cancer patient-derived xenograft (PDX) tumors. We then generated and analyzed H3K27ac ChIP-seq, MeDIP-seq, and whole genome sequencing cfDNA data from 1 mL aliquots of plasma from patients with EGFRm LUAD with or without tSCLC., Results: Analysis of 126 epigenomic libraries from the lung cancer PDXs revealed widespread epigenomic reprogramming between LUAD and tSCLC, with a large number of differential H3K27ac (n = 24,424), DNA methylation (n = 3,298), and chromatin accessibility (n = 16,352) sites between the two histologies. Tumor-informed analysis of each of these three epigenomic features in cfDNA resulted in accurate noninvasive discrimination between patients with EGFRm LUAD versus tSCLC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) = 0.82-0.87]. A multianalyte cfDNA-based classifier integrating these three epigenomic features discriminated between EGFRm LUAD versus tSCLC with an AUROC of 0.94., Conclusions: These data demonstrate the feasibility of detecting small cell transformation in patients with EGFRm LUAD through epigenomic cfDNA profiling of 1 mL of patient plasma., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background and Objective: EVEREST is a phase 3 trial in patients with renal cell cancer (RCC) at intermediate-high or very high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy who were randomized to receive adjuvant everolimus or placebo. Longer recurrence-free survival (RFS) was observed with everolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-1.00; p = 0.051), but the nominal significance level (p = 0.044) was not reached. To contextualize these results with positive phase 3 trials of adjuvant sunitinib and pembrolizumab, we conducted a secondary analysis in a similar population of EVEREST patients with very high-risk disease and clear cell histology., Methods: Postnephrectomy patients with any clear cell component and very high-risk disease, defined as pT3a (grade 3-4), pT3b-c (any grade), T4 (any grade), or node-positive status (N+), were identified. A Cox regression model stratified by performance status was used to compare RFS and overall survival (OS) between the treatment arms., Key Findings and Limitations: Of 1499 patients, 717 had clear cell histology and very high-risk disease; 699 met the eligibility criteria, of whom 348 were randomized to everolimus arm, and 351 to the placebo arm. Patient characteristics were similar between the arms. Only 163/348 (47%) patients in the everolimus arm completed all treatment as planned, versus 225/351 (64%) in the placebo arm. Adjuvant everolimus resulted in a statistically significant improvement in RFS (HR 0.80; 95%CI 0.65-0.99, p = 0.041). Evidence of a survival benefit was not seen (HR 0.85; 95%CI 0.64-1.14, p = 0.3) CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In patients with clear cell RCC at very high-risk for recurrence, adjuvant everolimus resulted in significantly improved RFS compared to placebo but resulted in a high discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Although the treatment HR for OS was consistent with RFS findings, it did not reach statistical significance. With a focus on risk stratification tools and/or biomarkers to minimize toxicity risk in those not likely to benefit, this information can help inform the design of future adjuvant trials in high-risk RCC., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The PARP inhibitor (PARPi) olaparib is approved for homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-altered metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, there is significant heterogeneity in response to PARPi in patients with mCRPC. Better clinical biomarkers are needed to identify patients likely to benefit from PARPi., Methods: Patients with prostate adenocarcinoma and panel sequencing at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute were identified. Mutational signature analysis was performed using SigMA to characterize tumors as HRR deficient (HRD). The validity of SigMA to identify patients likely to benefit from olaparib was compared to the current FDA label (presence of a deleterious alteration in one of 14 HRR genes)., Results: 546 patients were identified, of which 34% were HRD. Among patients with HRR gene alterations, only patients with BRCA2 two-copy loss (2CL) were more likely to be HRD compared to patients without HRR gene alterations (74% vs 31%; P = 9.1 × 10 -7 ). 28 patients with mCRPC received olaparib, of which 13 were HRD and 9 had BRCA2 2CL. SigMA improved upon the current FDA label for predicting PSA50 (sensitivity: 100% vs 90%; specificity: 83% vs 44%; PPV: 77% vs 47%; NPV: 100% vs 89%) and rPFS > 6 months (sensitivity: both 92%; specificity: 93% vs 53%; PPV: 92% vs 63%; NPV: 93% vs 89%). On multivariate analysis, incorporating prognostic clinical factors and HR gene alterations, SigMA-predicted HRD independently associated with improved PSA-PFS (HR = 0.086, p = 0.00082) and rPFS (HR = 0.078, p = 0.0070)., Conclusions: SigMA-predicted HRD may better identify patients likely to benefit from olaparib as compared to the current FDA label. Larger studies are needed for further validation., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Belzutifan, a hypoxia-inducible factor 2α inhibitor, showed clinical activity in clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in early-phase studies., Methods: In a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, active-controlled trial, we enrolled participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies and randomly assigned them, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive 120 mg of belzutifan or 10 mg of everolimus orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. The key secondary end point was the occurrence of an objective response (a confirmed complete or partial response)., Results: A total of 374 participants were assigned to belzutifan, and 372 to everolimus. At the first interim analysis (median follow-up, 18.4 months), the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in both groups; at 18 months, 24.0% of the participants in the belzutifan group and 8.3% in the everolimus group were alive and free of progression (two-sided P = 0.002, which met the prespecified significance criterion). A confirmed objective response occurred in 21.9% of the participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.8 to 26.5) in the belzutifan group and in 3.5% (95% CI, 1.9 to 5.9) in the everolimus group (P<0.001, which met the prespecified significance criterion). At the second interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.7 months), the median overall survival was 21.4 months in the belzutifan group and 18.1 months in the everolimus group; at 18 months, 55.2% and 50.6% of the participants, respectively, were alive (hazard ratio for death, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.07; two-sided P = 0.20, which did not meet the prespecified significance criterion). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 61.8% of the participants in the belzutifan group (grade 5 in 3.5%) and in 62.5% in the everolimus group (grade 5 in 5.3%). Adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment in 5.9% and 14.7% of the participants, respectively., Conclusions: Belzutifan showed a significant benefit over everolimus with respect to progression-free survival and objective response in participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. Belzutifan was associated with no new safety signals. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; LITESPARK-005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04195750.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background and Objective: Until recently, the standard first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) was platinum-based combination chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance therapy for patients without progressive disease (PD). For patients with advanced UC who experience PD or recurrence, standard-of-care treatment is pembrolizumab monotherapy based on the phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 study. This post hoc analysis of the KEYNOTE-045 study evaluated the efficacy of pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy by the best response to prior platinum-based chemotherapy., Methods: Patients with advanced UC that progressed or recurred after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 wk (Q3W) for ≤2 yr or investigator's choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel [175 mg/m 2 ], docetaxel [75 mg/m 2 ], or vinflunine [320 mg/m 2 ], each Q3W). Endpoints included overall survival (OS) from the initiation of the last treatment prior to death, objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 from the date of the first response., Key Findings and Limitations: An objective response to pembrolizumab was observed in all groups in terms of a prior response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Median OS, ORR, and median DOR were numerically greater with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy across subgroups. Patients with PD as the best response to prior platinum-based chemotherapy had the poorest OS outcomes. Limitations include a lack of formal hypothesis testing., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: When compared with chemotherapy, prolonged OS and durable responses to second-line pembrolizumab were observed independently of the response to or type of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. These findings further support pembrolizumab as second-line treatment for advanced UC., (Copyright © 2024 Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA., The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but real-world data on sequential treatment are scarce. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of first-line (1L) systemic therapy following adjuvant immune oncology (IO)-based regimens., Methods: A retrospective study including patients with recurrent RCC following adjuvant IO across 29 international institutions was conducted. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) on 1L systemic therapy estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Preplanned subanalyses of clinical outcomes by type of 1L systemic therapy, recurrence timing, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups were performed. Treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, or corticosteroid use were assessed., Key Findings and Limitations: A total of 94 patients were included. Most received adjuvant pembrolizumab (n = 37, 39%), atezolizumab (n = 28, 30%), or nivolumab + ipilimumab (n = 15, 16%). The cohort included 49 (52%) patients who had recurrence within 3 mo of the last adjuvant IO dose, whereas 45 (48%) recurred beyond 3 mo. Bone metastases were significantly higher in tumors recurring at <3 mo (10/49, 20%) than those recurring at >3 mo (1/45, 2.2%; p = 0.008). Most patients received 1L vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (VEGF-TT; n = 37, 39%), IO + VEGF-TT (n = 26, 28%), or IO + IO (n = 12, 13%). The remaining underwent local therapy. The median follow-up for the 1L systemic therapy cohort was 15 mo. The 18-mo PFS and OS rates were 45% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-60) and 85% (95% CI: 75-95), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (42%) patients and included skin toxicity (n = 7, 9.2%), fatigue (n = 6, 7.9%), and diarrhea/colitis (n = 4, 5.3%). Limitations included selecting patients from large academic centers and the short follow-up period., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: A subset of patients with recurrent RCC following adjuvant IO respond to systemic therapies, including VEGF-TT and IO-based regimens. Notably, patients with favorable-risk disease may derive more benefit from VEGF-TT than from IO therapies in this setting. Future approaches utilizing radiographic tools and biomarker-based liquid biopsies are warranted to detect occult metastatic disease and identify candidate patients for adjuvant IO therapy., Patient Summary: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). There are limited data on clinical outcomes after the recurrence of RCC tumors following adjuvant immunotherapy. In this study, we find that patients respond to subsequent systemic therapies across different treatment options., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current tobacco smoking is independently associated with decreased overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with targeted monotherapy (VEGF-TKI). Herein, we assess the influence of smoking status on the outcomes of patients with mRCC treated with the current first-line standard of care of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens., Materials and Methods: Real-world data from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were collected retrospectively. Patients with mRCC who received either dual ICI therapy or ICI with VEGF-TKI in the first-line setting were included and were categorized as current, former, or nonsmokers. The primary outcomes were OS, time to treatment failure (TTF), and objective response rate (ORR). OS and TTF were compared between groups using the log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression models. ORR was assessed between the 3 groups using a multivariable logistic regression model., Results: A total of 989 eligible patients were included in the analysis, with 438 (44.3%) nonsmokers, 415 (42%) former, and 136 (13.7%) current smokers. Former smokers were older and included more males, while other baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Median follow-up for OS was 21.2 months. In the univariate analysis, a significant difference between groups was observed for OS (P = .027) but not for TTF (P = .9), with current smokers having the worse 2-year OS rate (62.8% vs 70.8% and 73.1% in never and former smokers, respectively). After adjusting for potential confounders, no significant differences in OS or TTF were observed among the 3 groups. However, former smokers demonstrated a higher ORR compared to never smokers (OR 1.45, P = .02)., Conclusion: Smoking status does not appear to independently influence the clinical outcomes to first-line ICI-based regimens in patients with mRCC. Nonetheless, patient counseling on tobacco cessation remains a crucial aspect of managing patients with mRCC, as it significantly reduces all-cause mortality., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: Both clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) overexpress kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1). We investigated whether plasma KIM-1 (pKIM-1) may be a useful risk stratification tool among patients with suspicious renal masses., Methods: Prenephrectomy pKIM-1 was measured in two independent cohorts of patients with renal masses. Cohort 1, from the prospective K2 trial, included 162 patients found to have clear cell RCC (cases) and 162 patients with benign renal masses (controls). Cohort 2 included 247 patients with small (cT1a) renal masses from an academic biorepository, of whom 184 had RCC. We assessed the relationship between pKIM-1, surgical pathology, and clinical outcomes., Results: In Cohort 1, pKIM-1 distinguished RCC versus benign masses with area under the receiver operating curve (AUC-ROC, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.76 to 0.86]). In Cohort 2 (cT1a only), pKIM-1 distinguished RCC versus benign masses (AUC-ROC, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80]) and the addition of pKIM-1 to an established nomogram for predicting malignancy improved the model AUC-ROC (0.65 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.74] v 0.78 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.85]). A pKIM-1 cutpoint identified using Cohort 2 demonstrated sensitivity of 92.5% and specificity of 60% for identifying RCC in Cohort 1. In long-term follow-up of RCC cases (Cohort 1), higher prenephrectomy pKIM-1 was associated with worse metastasis-free survival (multivariable MFS hazard ratio [HR] 1.29 per unit increase in log pKIM-1, 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.53) and overall survival (multivariable OS HR 1.31 per unit increase in log pKIM-1, 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.54). In long-term follow-up of Cohort 2, no metastatic events occurred, consistent with the favorable prognosis of resected cT1a RCC., Conclusion: Among patients with renal masses, pKIM-1 is associated with malignant pathology, worse MFS, and risk of death. pKIM-1 may be useful for selecting patients with renal masses for intervention versus surveillance.

Older patients have similar immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy and rates of adverse events as younger patients, but appear to have decreased tolerability, particularly in the oldest patient cohort (>80 years), often leading to early cessation of therapy. We aimed to determine whether early discontinuation impacts efficacy of anti-PD-1 therapy in patients ≥80 years old. In this retrospective, multicenter, international cohort study, we examined 773 patients with 4 tumor types who were at least 80 years old and treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. We determined response rate, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients who discontinued therapy early (<12 months) for reasons other than progression or death. We used descriptive statistics for demographics, response, and toxicity rates. Survival statistics were described using Kaplan Meier curves. Median (range) age at anti-PD-1 initiation was 83.0 (75.8-97.0) years. The cancer types included were melanoma (n = 286), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 345), urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) (n = 108), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (n = 34). Of these, 102 met the primary endpoint of <12 months to discontinuation for reasons other than death or progression. Median PFS and OS, respectively, for these patients were 34.4 months and 46.6 months for melanoma, 15.8 months and 23.4 months for NSCLC, and 10.4 months and 15.8 months for UCC. This study suggests geriatric patients who have demonstrated therapeutic benefit and discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy at less than 12 months of duration for reasons other than progression may have durable clinical benefit without additional therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Alessio Cortellini declares grants for consultancies/advisory boards from MSD, OncoC4, IQVIA, AstraZeneca, Access Infinity, Ardelis-Health, Alpha Sight, Roche, REGENERON; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pierre-Fabre, MSD, Sanofi/REGENERON; writing/editorial activity from BMS, MSD; travel support from Sanofi, MSD. Anwaar Saaed reports research grants (to institution) from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Clovis, Exelixis, Actuate therapeutics, Incyte Corporation, Daiichi Sankyo, Five prime therapeutics, Amgen, Innovent biologics, Dragonfly therapeutics, Oxford biotherapeutics, KAHR medical, Biontech, and advisory board/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Xilio therapeutics, Arcus therapeutics, Exelixis, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Akiva Diamond served on an Advisory Board for Incyte. Christopher Hoimes has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Merck, Seagen. Amin H. Nassar receives honoraria from OncLive, TEMPUS, and Korean Society for Medical Oncology and received consulting fees from Guidepoint Global. Dwight Owen discloses research funding (to institution) from BMS, Merck, Genentech, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI. Toni Choueiri reports institutional and/or personal, paid and/or unpaid support for research, advisory boards, consultancy, and/or honoraria past 5 years, ongoing or not, from: Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Nuscan, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, CCO and others), outside the submitted work. TC also reports institutional patents filed on molecular alterations and immunotherapy response/toxicity, and ctDNA; equity: Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio, CureResponse, InnDura Therapeutics, Primium; committees: NCCN, GU Steering Committee, ASCO/ESMO, ACCRU, KidneyCan; medical writing and editorial assistance support may have been funded by Communications companies in part; no speaker's bureau. TC entored several non-US citizens on research projects with potential funding (in part) from non-US sources/Foreign Components. The institution of TC (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) may have received additional independent funding of drug companies or/and royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter. David J Pinato declares the following competing interests: Lecture fees: Bayer Healthcare, Astra Zeneca, EISAI, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Roche, Ipsen; Travel expenses: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Roche, Bayer Healthcare; Consulting fees: Mina Therapeutics, Boeringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, EISAI, Ipsen, Roche, H3B, Astra Zeneca, DaVolterra, Mursla, Starpharma, Avammune Therapeutics, LiFT Biosciences, Exact Sciences; Research funding (to institution): MSD, BMS, GSK. Thomas Marron currently or has previously served on Advisory and/or Data Safety Monitoring Boards for Rockefeller University, Regeneron, AbbVie, Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Atara, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Celldex, Chimeric, DrenBio, Glenmark, Simcere, Surface, G1 Therapeutics, NGMbio, DBV Technologies, Arcus, Fate, Ono, Larkspur, and Astellas. Abdul Rafeh Naqash receives funding for trials he is PI on: Loxo@Lilly, Surface Oncology, ADC Therapeutics, IGM Biosciences, EMD Serono, Aravive, Nikang Therapeutics, Inspirna, Exelexis, Revolution Medicine, Jacobio, Pionyr, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. ARN also received Consultant Editor Compensation from JCO Precision Oncology, Travel Compensation from: SITC/AACR/Conquer Cancer Foundation/BinayTara Foundation and Foundation Med, Caris Life Sciences, and serves on the Advisory Board for Foundation Med. Douglas Johnson has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The safety profile of adjuvant pembrolizumab was evaluated in a pooled analysis of 4 phase 3 clinical trials., Methods: Patients had completely resected stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma per American Joint Committee on Cancer, 7th edition, criteria (AJCC-7; KEYNOTE-054); stage IIB or IIC melanoma per AJCC-8 (KEYNOTE-716); stage IB, II, or IIIA non-small cell lung cancer per AJCC-7 (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091); or postnephrectomy/metastasectomy clear cell renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence (KEYNOTE-564). Patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg (2 mg/kg up to 200 mg for pediatric patients) or placebo every 3 weeks for approximately 1 year. Adverse events (AEs) were summarized for patients who received ≥ 1 dose of treatment., Results: Data were pooled from 4125 patients treated with pembrolizumab (n = 2060) or placebo (n = 2065). Median (range) duration of treatment was 11.1 months (0.0-18.9) with pembrolizumab and 11.2 months (0.0-18.1) with placebo. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 78.6 % (1620/2060) of patients in the pembrolizumab group (grade 3-5, 16.3 % [336/2060]) and 58.7 % (1212/2065) in the placebo group (grade 3-5, 3.5 % [72/2065]). Immune-mediated AEs (e.g. adrenal insufficiency, hypophysitis, and thyroiditis) occurred in 36.2 % (746/2060) of patients in the pembrolizumab group (grade 3-5, 8.6 % [177/2060]) and 8.4 % (174/2065) in the placebo group (grade 3-5, 1.1 % [23/2065]). Of patients with ≥ 1 immune-mediated AE or infusion reaction, systemic corticosteroids were required for 35.2 % (268/761) and 20.2 % (39/193) of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups, respectively., Conclusions: Adjuvant pembrolizumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile that was comparable to prior reports in advanced disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Jason J. Luke reports grants or contracts from AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day One, EMD Serono, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, Macrogenics, MSD, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimmune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, and Xencor; consulting fees from 7 Hills, Bright Peak, Exo, Fstar, Inzen, RefleXion, Xilio, Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, Tempest, AbbVie, Alnylam, Atomwise, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Flame, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, IO Biotech, Macrogenics, MSD, Mersana, Nektar, Novartis, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Ribon, Roivant, Servier, STINGthera, Synlogic, and Synthekine; patents planned, issued, or pending for Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy) and PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof) (both provisional); participation in a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Immutep, and Evaxion; a leadership or fiduciary role at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer; and stock or stock options in Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, and Tempest. Georgina V. Long reports consulting fees and participating on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Agenus Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech A/S, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA Inc, MSD, Novartis Pharma AG, OncoSec Medical Australia, Pierre Fabre, Provectus Australia, Qbiotics Group Limited, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre. Caroline Robert reports support for medical writing for the present manuscript from MSD; consulting fees from BMS, Roche, MSD, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Pfizer, and Regeneron; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Ultimovacs and Regeneron; and stock or stock options in Ribonexus. Matteo S. Carlino reports consulting fees from Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, SMD, and Sanofi; and honoraria for lectures from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Toni K. Choueiri reports support from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVA, Infiniti, Ipsen, Kanaph, Lilly, MSD, Nikang, Novartis, Nuscan, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events (Peerview, PER, MJH Life Sciences, Research to Practice, France Foundation, Springer, WebMed, ASiM Ce, Caribou Publishing, and others); grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Aveo, Arcus, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, and Takeda; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, Infiniti, Ipsen, Kanaph, Lilly, MSD, Nikang, Novartis, Nuscan, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events (Peerview, PER, MJH Life Sciences, Research to Practice, France Foundation, Springer, WebMed, ASiM Ce, Caribou Publishing); payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, Infiniti., Ipsen, Kanaph, Lilly, MSD, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, CME events (Peerview, PER, MJH Life Sciences, Research to Practice, France Foundation, Springer, WebMed, ASiM Ce, Caribou Publishing); a patent planned, issued, or pending related to ctDNA and biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors; participation in a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Aravive; a leadership or fiduciary role with KidneyCan, ASCO, ESMO, NCCN, GU, and NCI; stock or stock options in Pionyr, Tempest, Precede Bio, Osel, Curesponse, Immdura, and Primium; and other financial or non-financial interests including support from the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE (2P50CA101942–16) and Program 5P30CA006516–56, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, Pan-Mass Challenge, Hinda and Arthur Marcus Fund and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at DFC. Naomi B. Haas reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, Eisai, and Exelixis. Mary O’Brien reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca and MSD; support for attending ESMO from AstraZeneca; and participation on an IDMC. Luis Paz-Ares reports grants or contracts from MSD, AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer, and PharmaMar; consulting fees from Lilly, MSD, Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer, BMS, Mirati, GSK, Janssen, Takeda, and Regeneron; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Lilly, MSD, Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer, BMS, Mirati, GSK, Janssen, Takeda, and Regeneron; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Lilly, MSD, Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer, BMS, Mirati, GSK, Janssen, Takeda, and Regeneron; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Altum Sequencing and Stab Therapeutics; and stock or stock options in Altum Sequencing and Stab Therapeutics. Solange Peters reports support for the present manuscript from MSD; grants or contracts from Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, iTeos, MSD, Mirati, Pharma Mar, Promontory Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, and Seattle Genetics; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BerGenBio, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Hutchmed, Illumina, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos, Janssen, MSD, Merrimack, Mirati, Nykode Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, Pharma Mar, Promontory Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, GSK, Illumina, Ipsen, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Takeda; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BerGenBio, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Hutchmed, Illumina, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos, Janssen, MSD, Merrimack, Mirati, Nykode Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, Pharma Mar, Promontory Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; and a leadership or fiduciary role with Galenica SA. Thomas Powles reports support for the present manuscript from Astellas and Open Health; grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, Eisai, and Mashup Ltd; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche, Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen. Melanie A. Leiby, Jianxin Lin, Clemens Krepler, Rodolfo F. Perini, M. Catherine Pietanza, Todd Gruber, and Nageatte Ibrahim report employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Ayman Samkari and Yujie Zhao reports employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Alexander M. M. Eggermont reports support for the present manuscript from Merck & Co; consulting fees from Alcetra, Agenus, BioInvent, Brenus, CatalYm, Ellipses, Epics, GSK, IO Biotech, IQVIA, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., Inc., MSD, Oncimmune, Pierre Fabre, Sairopa, Scorpion, Sellas, Skyline, TigaTX, and Trained Immunity TTC; payment or honoraria for lectures from IO Biotech, BMS, Merck & Co., Inc./MSD; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer; and stock or stock options in IO Biotech, Sairopa, and SkylineDX., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Immunotherapy-based combinations have emerged as standard therapies for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, combined with epacadostat, an indoleamine 2,3-deoxygenase 1 selective inhibitor, demonstrated promising antitumor activity in a phase 1 study in advanced solid tumors, including mRCC., Methods: KEYNOTE-679/ECHO-302 was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 study (NCT03260894) that compared pembrolizumab plus epacadostat with sunitinib or pazopanib as first-line treatment for mRCC. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC and had not received systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks plus epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily versus sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off treatment) or pazopanib 800 mg orally once daily. Original dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. Enrollment was stopped when a phase 3 study in melanoma of pembrolizumab plus epacadostat compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy did not meet its primary end point. This protocol was amended, and primary end point was changed to investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1., Results: One-hundred-twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (n = 64) or sunitinib/pazopanib (n = 65). Median (range) follow-up, defined as time from randomization to data cutoff, was 10.3 months (2.2-14.3) and 10.3 months (2.7-13.8) in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (31.3% [95% CI 20.2-44.1] and sunitinib/pazopanib (29.2% [18.6-41.8]). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.4% and 42.9% of patients in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. One patient in the sunitinib/pazopanib arm died of septic shock (not treatment-related). Circulating kynurenine levels decreased in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat arm, but not to levels observed in healthy subjects., Conclusions: ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Safety and tolerability appeared similar between treatment arms; no new safety concerns were identified. Antitumor responses observed in patients with RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus epacadostat may be driven primarily by pembrolizumab., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03260894 ., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Immunotherapy can be associated with prolonged disease control even after cessation of treatment without the need for further cancer-directed therapy. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) can also persist after discontinuation of therapy. Treatment-free survival (TFS) with and without toxicity as a component of a partitioned survival model can characterize patient survival time, which is not captured by standard outcome measures., Methods: Data from 1096 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the CheckMate 214 trial were analyzed. TFS was defined as the area between two Kaplan-Meier curves for time from randomization to protocol therapy discontinuation and time from randomization to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated as the difference in 60-month restricted mean times with confidence intervals (CIs) obtained using bootstrap sampling. Time on protocol therapy and TFS were further characterized as time with and without grade 2+ and 3+TRAEs. Survival functions were estimated in subgroups including International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: At 5 years from randomization, 48% of patients treated with NIVO+IPI and 37% of patients treated with SUN were alive. In the intent-to-treat population, 18% of the NIVO+IPI-treated and 5% of SUN-treated patients are surviving treatment-free. For favorable-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 14.4 months for NIVO+IPI versus 5.5 months for SUN (difference 8.9 months (95% CI 4.9 to 12.8)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 5.0 and 2.1 months, respectively, and with grade 3+TRAEs was 1.2 and 0.3 months, respectively. For intermediate/poor-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 10.1 months for NIVO+IPI versus 4.1 months for SUN (difference 6.1 months (95% CI 4.2 to 7.9)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 4.0 versus 2.0 months, respectively, and 0.6 versus 0.3 months with grade 3+TRAEs., Conclusions: Although overall survival was similar, favorable-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI spent more time surviving treatment-free with and without toxicity versus SUN after 60 months of follow-up. Intermediate/poor-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI had longer survival and longer TFS without toxicity versus SUN., Trial Registration Number: NCT02231749., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CMM reports no conflicts of interest. OAJ reports no conflicts of interest. TP reports consulting or advisory roles with Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Roche, Exelixis, MSD, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, Eisai, MashupMD, Merck, and Incyte; travel, accommodations, expenses from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Ipsen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Astellas Pharma, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Seagen, Merck Serono, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, and MashupMD; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Exelixis, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai. RJM reports consulting or advisory roles with Eisai, Exelixis, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Calithera Biosciences, and AVEO; travel, accommodations, and expenses from BMS; and research funding to institution from Pfizer, BMS, Eisai, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Exelixis, Merck, and AVEO. NMT reports stock and other ownership interests with Amgen, Arcturus, Arcus Biosciences, BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Merck, Surface Oncology, Vanguard Health Care ETF, Xencor, First Trust Amex Biotech (FBT), Nuvation Bio, Revolution Medicines, and Spdr S&P Pharmaceuticals ETF; honoraria from BMS, Exelixis, Eisai Medical Research, Neoleukin Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Intellisphere, Oncorena, AstraZeneca/Merck, and Nektar Therapeutics; consulting or advisory roles with Oncorena, Merck Sharp & Dohme, BMS Foundation, and Nektar; and research funding to institution from Exelixis, BMS, Nektar, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Calithera Biosciences. C-HL reports research funding to institution from BMS, Calithera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Merck, and Pfizer; consulting or advisory roles with Amgen, BMS, Exelixis, Eisai, Merck, Pfizer, and EMD Serono; and honoraria from AiCME, Intellisphere, and Research to Practice. YT reports consulting or advisory roles with Eisai, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, BMS Japan, Chugai Pharma, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Merck, Pfizer, and MSD; and research funding to institution from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, and Takeda. MHV reports consulting or advisory roles with Novartis, GSK, Exelixis, Merck, Corvus, Calithera, and AVEO; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Takeda, Novartis; research funding with BMS and Roche/Genentech. ERP reports consulting or advisory roles with Seattle Genetics/Astellas, AstraZeneca, AVEO, BMS/Medarex, Calithera Biosciences, EMD Serono, Exelixis, IMV, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Merck, Signatera, Pfizer, and Regeneron; and research funding to institution from BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Astellas, and Genentech/Roche. TKC reports institutional and/or personal, paid and/or unpaid support for research, advisory boards, consultancy, and/or honoraria past 5 years, ongoing or not, from: Alkermes, Arcus Bio, AstraZeneca, Aravive, AVEO, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Neomorph, Nuscan/PrecedeBio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, CCO and others), outside the submitted work. Institutional patents filed on molecular alterations and immunotherapy response/toxicity, and ctDNA. Equity: Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio, CureResponse, InnDura Therapeutics, Primium. Committees: NCCN, GU Steering Committee, ASCO (BOD 6-2024-, ESMO, ACCRU, KidneyCan. Medical writing and editorial assistance support may have been funded by Communications companies in part. No speaker’s bureau. Mentored several non-US citizens on research projects with potential funding (in part) from non-US sources/Foreign Components. The institution (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) may have received additional independent funding of drug companies or/and royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter. TKC is supported in part by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE (2P50CA101942-16) and Program 5P30CA006516-56, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, Pan Mass Challenge, Hinda and Arthur Marcus Fund and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at DFCI. BIR reports consulting or advisory roles with Pfizer, Merck, BMS, AVEO, Surface Oncology, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Aravive, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Genentech, Alkermes, NiKang Therapeutics, EUSA Pharma, Athenex, Debiopharm Group, and HiberCell; leadership roles with MJH Life Sciences and MashupMD; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer, BMS, and Merck; stock and other ownership interests with PTC Therapeutics; and research funding to institution from Pfizer, Roche/ Genentech, BMS, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Incyte, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Seagen, Surface Oncology, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Aravive, Exelixis, AVEO, Arcus Biosciences, HiberCell, Stata, ADC Therapeutics, Dracen, Janssen, Adela, Pionyr, VasGene Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Point Therapeutics, and Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan. HJH reports consulting or advisory roles with BMS, Pfizer, Exelixis, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, ARMO BioSciences, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Surface Oncology, and Lilly; travel, accommodations, and expenses from BMS, Merck, Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis; honoraria from BMS; and research funding to institution from BMS, Merck, Aravive, and Surface Oncology. BE reports consulting or advisory roles with Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, AVEO, and Oncorena; travel, accommodations, and expenses from BMS, Ipsen, and MSD; honoraria from Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, and Oncorena; and research funding to institution from BMS. LA reports consulting or advisory roles to institution with Astellas, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; non-financial interests with Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, Roche, Exelixis, AVEO, AstraZeneca, MSD, ASCO, Kidney Foundation, and ESMO. LR reports employment with BMS and stock and other ownership interests with BMS. MBA reports consulting or advisory roles with Genentech, Novartis, BMS, Merck, Exelixis, Eisai, Agenus, Werewolf Pharma, Surface Oncology, Pyxis, Fathom Biotechnology, AVEO, Cota Healthcare, Idera, Ellipses Pharma, AstraZeneca, PACT Pharma, Pfizer, Scholar Rock, Asher Biotherapeutics, Takeda, Sanofi, Simcha Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Oncorena, and Pliant; stock and other ownership interests with Werewolf Pharma and Pyxis; and research funding to institution from BMS and Merck. MMR reports consulting or advisory roles (institution) with Ipsen and Debiopharm; personal fees from BMS and Tolmar Pharmaceuticals; grants from Novartis, Pfizer, Ipsen, TerSera, Merck, Ferring, Pierre Fabre, Roche, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and BMS. DFM reports consulting or advisory roles with BMS, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Exelixis, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Peloton Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Jounce Therapeutics, Alkermes, Lilly, Eisai, Calithera Biosciences, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Werewolf Therapeutics, Synthekine, AVEO, Sanofi, and Xilio Therapeutics; other relationship with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; research funding to institution from BMS, Merck, Genentech, Novartis, and Alkermes; and uncompensated relationships with X4 Pharma and AVEO., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Lymphocytes are closely linked to mechanisms of action of immuno-oncology (IO) agents. We aimed to assess the prognostic significance of absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Patients and Methods: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), patients receiving first-line IO-based combination therapy were analysed. Baseline patient characteristics, objective response rates (ORRs), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) were compared., Results: Of 966 patients included, 195 (20%) had lymphopenia at baseline, and they had a lower ORR (37% versus 45%; P < 0.001), shorter TTNT (10.1 months versus 24.3 months; P < 0.001), and shorter OS (30.4 months versus 48.2 months; P < 0.001). Among 125 patients with lymphopenia at baseline, 52 (42%) experienced ALC recovery at 3 months, and they had longer OS (not reached versus 30.4 months; P = 0.012). On multivariable analysis for OS, lymphopenia was an independent adverse prognostic factor (hazard ratio 1.68; P < 0.001). Incorporation of lymphopenia into the IMDC criteria improved OS prediction accuracy (C-index from 0.688 to 0.707)., Conclusions: Lymphopenia was observed in one-fifth of treatment-naive patients with mRCC and may serve as an indicator of unfavourable oncologic outcomes in the contemporary IO era., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In the phase 3 CLEAR trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (L + P) showed superior efficacy versus sunitinib in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The combination treatment was associated with a robust objective response rate of 71%. Here we report tumor responses for patients in the L + P arm in CLEAR, with median follow-up of ∼4 yr at the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis. Tumor responses were assessed by independent review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Patients with a complete response (CR; n = 65), partial response (PR) with maximum tumor shrinkage ≥75% (near-CR; n = 59), or PR with maximum tumor shrinkage <75% (other PR; n = 129), were characterized in terms of their baseline characteristics. The median duration of response was 43.7 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.2-not estimable) for the CR group, 30.5 mo (95% CI 22.4-not estimable) for the near-CR group, and 17.2 mo (95% CI 12.5-21.4) for the other PR group. The 36-mo OS rates were consistently high in the CR (97%), near-CR (86%), and other PR (62%) groups. Robust objective response rates were observed across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium favorable-risk (69%, 95% CI 60-78%), intermediate-risk (73%, 95% CI 67-79%), and poor-risk (70%, 95% CI 54-85%) subgroups. The robust response to L + P supports this combination as a standard-of-care first-line treatment for patients with aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: The CLEAR trial enrolled patients with advanced kidney cancer who had not previously received any treatment for their cancer. Here we report results for tumor shrinkage observed in the group that received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination treatment during the trial. Shrinkage of target tumors with this combination was long-lasting and was observed in patients irrespective of their disease severity. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02811861., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid differentiation (sRCC) is associated with poor survival and a heightened response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Two major barriers to improving outcomes for sRCC are the limited understanding of its gene regulatory programs and the low diagnostic yield of tumor biopsies due to spatial heterogeneity. Herein, we characterized the epigenomic landscape of sRCC by profiling 107 epigenomic libraries from tissue and plasma samples from 50 patients with RCC and healthy volunteers. By profiling histone modifications and DNA methylation, we identified highly recurrent epigenomic reprogramming enriched in sRCC. Furthermore, CRISPRa experiments implicated the transcription factor FOSL1 in activating sRCC-associated gene regulatory programs, and FOSL1 expression was associated with the response to ICIs in RCC in two randomized clinical trials. Finally, we established a blood-based diagnostic approach using detectable sRCC epigenomic signatures in patient plasma, providing a framework for discovering epigenomic correlates of tumor histology via liquid biopsy., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests S.R.V. reports consulting (current or past 3 years) for Jnana Therapeutics, research support from Bayer, and that their spouse is an employee of and holds equity in Kojin Therapeutics. D.A.B. reports honoraria from LM Education/Exchange Services; advisory board fees from Exelixis and AVEO; consulting fees from Merck, Pfizer, and Elephas; equity in Elephas, Fortress Biotech (subsidiary), and CurIOS Therapeutics; personal fees from Schlesinger Associates, Cancer Expert Now, Adnovate Strategies, MDedge, CancerNetwork, Catenion, OncLive, Cello Health BioConsulting, PWW Consulting, Haymarket Medical Network, Aptitude Health, ASCO Post/Harborside, Targeted Oncology, Accolade 2nd.MD, DLA Piper, AbbVie, Compugen, Link Cell Therapies, and Scholar Rock; and research support from Exelixis and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. S.C.B., T.K.C., and M.L.F. are co-founders and shareholders of Precede Biosciences., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In CheckMate 214 (median follow-up, 25.2 months), nivolumab plus ipilimumab yielded greater overall survival (OS) benefit than sunitinib in patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19) was also more favorable for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the sunitinib group. We investigated whether HRQoL scores can predict OS of patients with 5 years follow-up in CheckMate 214., Patients and Methods: CheckMate 214 was an open-label, phase III trial in previously untreated aRCC (N = 1096). Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk disease (International mRCC Database Consortium prognostic score ≥ 1; n = 847) were randomized to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib monotherapy. Pooled data for OS and FKSI-19 total and subscales (disease-related symptoms [DRS], DRS-physical [DRS-P], and function/well-being [FWB]) were analyzed. Relationships between HRQoL and OS were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with baseline and longitudinal scores. Associations between HRQoL changes and OS were assessed by landmark analyses., Results: Patients with higher FKSI-19 total and subscale scores at baseline had longer OS than patients with lower scores (HR ≤ 0.834; P < .0001). Longitudinal models indicated stronger associations between HRQoL and OS (HR ≤ 0.69; P < .001 for each). At 3 months after randomization, patients with stable/improved HRQoL versus baseline had longer median OS than patients with worsened/unobserved HRQoL versus baseline (55.9 and 26.0 months, respectively; HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67; P < .0001). Results at 6-, 9-, and 12-month landmarks were consistent with these findings., Conclusion: In aRCC, patient-reported outcomes are important for HRQoL and prognostic evaluation., Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02231749; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background and Objective: There exists ongoing debate about the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer. This study sought to evaluate the association of county-level PSA screening rates with county-level incidence of metastatic prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality in the USA., Methods: This ecological study used data from the 2004-2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to build a multilevel mixed-effect model with poststratification using US Census data to estimate county-level PSA screening rates for all 3143 US counties adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, and county-level poverty rates. The exposure of interest was average county-level PSA screening rate from 2004 to 2012, defined as the proportion of men aged 40-79 yr who underwent PSA screening within the prior 2 yr. The primary outcomes were county-level age-adjusted incidence of regional/distant prostate cancer during 2015-2019 and age-adjusted prostate cancer mortality during 2016-2020., Key Findings and Limitations: A total of 416 221 male BRFSS respondents aged 40-79 yr met the inclusion criteria and were used in the multilevel mixed-effect model. The model was poststratified using 63.4 million men aged 40-79 yr from all 3143 counties in the 2010 Decennial Census. County-level estimated PSA screening rates exhibited geographic variability and were pooled at the state level for internal validation with direct BRFSS state-level estimates, showing a strong correlation with Pearson correlation coefficients 0.77-0.90. A 10% higher county-level probability of PSA screening in 2004-2012 was associated with a 14% lower county-level incidence of regional/distant prostate cancer in 2015-2019 (rate ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.87, p < 0.001) and 10% lower county-level prostate cancer mortality in 2016-2020 (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91, p < 0.001)., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: In this population-based ecological study of all US counties, higher PSA screening rates were associated with a lower incidence of regional/distant prostate cancer and lower prostate cancer mortality at extended follow-up., Patient Summary: US counties with higher rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening had significantly lower rates of metastatic prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality in subsequent years. These data may inform shared decision-making regarding PSA screening for prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Existing data on the impact of Hispanic ethnicity on outcomes for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is mixed. The authors investigated outcomes of Hispanic and non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with advanced RCC receiving systemic therapy at large academic cancer centers using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC)., Methods: Eligible patients included non-Black Hispanic and NHW patients with locally advanced or metastatic RCC initiating systemic therapy. Overall survival (OS) and time to first-line treatment failure (TTF) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of ethnicity on OS and TTF were estimated by Cox regression hazard ratios (HRs)., Results: A total of 1563 patients (181 Hispanic and 1382 NHW) (mostly males [73.8%] with clear cell RCC [81.5%] treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI] monotherapy [69.9%]) were included. IMDC risk groups were similar between groups. Hispanic patients were younger at initial diagnosis (median 57 vs. 59 years, p = .015) and less likely to have greater than one metastatic site (60.8% vs. 76.8%, p < .001) or bone metastases (23.8% vs. 33.4%, p = .009). Median OS and TTF was 38.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.1-59.2) versus 35.7 months (95% CI, 31.9-39.2) and 7.8 months (95% CI, 6.2-9.0) versus 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.9-8.1), respectively, in Hispanic versus NHW patients. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.31, p = .56) or TTF (adjusted HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.26, p = .50)., Conclusions: The authors did not observe statistically significant differences in OS or TTF between Hispanic and NHW patients with advanced RCC. Receiving treatment at tertiary cancer centers may mitigate observed disparities in cancer outcomes., (© 2024 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has not yet been well characterized in the era of combination immunotherapy., Objective: To evaluate characteristics and outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who received immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy according to CN status., Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), patients with mRCC who received frontline IO-based combinations were included. Upfront CN was defined as CN up to 3 mo before diagnosis of metastatic disease but before systemic therapy initiation. Deferred CN was defined as CN after systemic therapy initiation., Outcomes Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS) from initiation of systemic therapy was estimated via Cox proportional-hazards regression. A 12-mo landmark time and a time-varying covariate for CN status were used to mitigate potential bias., Results and Limitations: Of the 385 patients eligible for landmark analysis, 24, 182, and 179 underwent deferred CN, upfront CN, and no CN, respectively. Patients in the no CN subgroup were older (63 yr vs 57 yr in the deferred CN subgroup and 60 yr in the upfront CN subgroup; p = 0.001) and a higher proportion had bone metastases (44% vs 26% in the deferred CN subgroup and 23% in the upfront CN subgroup; p < 0.001). A lower proportion of patients in the upfront CN subgroup had IMDC poor risk (23% vs 43% in the no CN subgroup and 47% in the deferred CN subgroup; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, CN receipt was an independent favorable prognostic factor (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.78; p = 0.005). The study is limited by the lack of randomization and its retrospective nature., Conclusions: Despite changes in practice patterns with the advent of novel therapeutic agents, CN may still serve as an effective surgical intervention in carefully selected patients., Patient Summary: For patients with metastatic kidney cancer, surgery to remove the primary tumor was traditionally the treatment of choice, but immunotherapy drugs are now another option for these patients. We analyzed data for contemporary patients with metastatic kidney cancer who received combination immunotherapy as their first treatment. We found that in selected patients receiving immunotherapy, surgery to remove the primary tumor as well can result in better prognosis., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUNDMetastases are the hallmark of lethal cancer, though underlying mechanisms that drive metastatic spread to specific organs remain poorly understood. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is known to have distinct sites of metastases, with lung, bone, liver, and lymph nodes being more common than brain, gastrointestinal tract, and endocrine glands. Previous studies have shown varying clinical behavior and prognosis associated with the site of metastatic spread; however, little is known about the molecular underpinnings that contribute to the differential outcomes observed by the site of metastasis.METHODSWe analyzed primary renal tumors and tumors derived from metastatic sites to comprehensively characterize genomic and transcriptomic features of tumor cells as well as to evaluate the tumor microenvironment at both sites.RESULTSWe included a total of 657 tumor samples (340 from the primary site [kidney] and 317 from various sites of metastasis). We show distinct genomic alterations, transcriptomic signatures, and immune and stromal tumor microenvironments across metastatic sites in a large cohort of patients with RCC.CONCLUSIONWe demonstrate significant heterogeneity among primary tumors and metastatic sites and elucidate the complex interplay between tumor cells and the extrinsic tumor microenvironment that is vital for developing effective anticancer therapies.