Search

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: Few treatment options are available for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received previous anti-PD-1-based or anti-PD-L1-based immunotherapy. Combining belzutifan, an HIF-2α inhibitor, with cabozantinib, a multitargeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitor of VEGFR, c-MET, and AXL, might provide more antitumoural effects than either agent alone. We aimed to investigate the antitumour activity and safety of belzutifan plus cabozantinib in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma that was previously treated with immunotherapy., Methods: This open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study was conducted at ten hospitals and cancer centres in the USA. Patients were enrolled into two cohorts. Patients in cohort 1 had treatment-naive disease (results will be reported separately). In cohort 2, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and had previously received immunotherapy and up to two systemic treatment regimens. Patients were given belzutifan 120 mg orally once daily and cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response assessed by the investigator. Antitumour activity and safety were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03634540, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Sept 27, 2018, and July 14, 2020, 117 patients were screened for eligibility, 52 (44%) of whom were enrolled in cohort 2 and received at least one dose of study treatment. Median age was 63·0 years (IQR 57·5-68·5), 38 (73%) of 52 patients were male, 14 (27%) were female, 48 (92%) were White, two (4%) were Black or African American, and two were Asian (4%). As of data cutoff (Feb 1, 2022), median follow-up was 24·6 months (IQR 22·1-32·2). 16 (30·8% [95% CI 18·7-45·1]) of 52 patients had a confirmed objective response, including one (2%) who had a complete response and 15 (29%) who had partial responses. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (14 [27%] of 52 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 15 (29%) patients. One death was considered treatment related by the investigator (respiratory failure)., Interpretation: Belzutifan plus cabozantinib has promising antitumour activity in patients with pretreated clear cell renal cell carcinoma and our findings provide rationale for further randomised trials with belzutifan in combination with a VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme (a subsidiary of Merck & Co) and the National Cancer Institute., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TKC reports institutional and personal, paid or unpaid support, or both, for research, advisory boards, consultancy, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Calithera, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, NuScan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and Continuing Medical Education events (Peerview, OncLive, and MJH). TKC has institutional patents filed on molecular alterations and immunotherapy response or toxicity, and ctDNA. TKC has stock or stock options in Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio, and CureResponse, and serves on committees for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Genitourinary Cancer Steering Committee, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, Academic and Community Cancer Research United, and KidneyCan. TKC mentored several non-US citizens on research projects with potential funding (in part) from non-US sources or foreign components. TKC's institution (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) might have received additional independent funding of drug companies or royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter. DFM has received honoraria from BMS, Pfizer, Merck, Alkermes, EMD Serono, Eli Lilly, Werewolf Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, Synthekine, Johnson & Johnson, and Aveo and research support from BMS, Merck, Genentech, Pfizer, Exelixis, X4 Pharma, Alkermes, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, and CRISPR Therapeutics. JM has received research grants from Merck, Eisai, Exelixis, Rubius Therapeutics, Corvus, Trishula, Genentech, Peloton, Vyriad, SillaJen, Seattle Genetics, Tocagen, and Replimune; royalties from UpToDate; and participated on an advisory board for Merck. TMB has received study support from Merck; and speaking or consulting fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Eli Lilly, and Bristol Myers Squibb. RF has received research grants from Merck. MDM has participated in advisory boards for Merck, Eisai, Janssen, and Exelixis. SZ has participated on an advisory board for Exelixis. AR, RP, and DV are employees of Merck & Co. SST has received research funding from Genentech, BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Nektar, Exelixis, Clinigen Group, and Aveo Oncology; honoraria for FirstWord Pharma, Targeted Oncology, and Natera; and participated on an advisory board for Merck, BMS, and Exelixis. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up., Methods: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861., Findings: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93])., Interpretation: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma., Funding: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TKC reports research funding, paid to their institution, from AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, 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, IQVA, Infiniti, Ipsen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Novartis, Nuscan, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVA, Infiniti, Ipsen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events; support for attending meetings or travel from Eisai, Merck, Exelixis, and Pfizer; patents planned, issued, or pending related to ctDNA and biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (no royalties as of April 12, 2022); participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Aravive; a leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, for KidneyCan (unpaid), committees for American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network®, and Genitourinary Steering Committee of the National Cancer Institute; stock or stock options from Pionyr, Tempest, Precede Bio, and Osel; and salary and research support from Dana-Farber and Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE (2P50CA101942-16) and Program 5P30CA006516-56, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School, and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. ME reports research funding from Kissei, Sanofi, Astellas, ONO, Takeda, and Bayer; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, ONO, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Janssen, and Merck. RM reports research funding, paid to their institution from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Pfizer, and Aveo Pharmaceuticals and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda. UDG reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis oncology, Eisai, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Roche and support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Ipsen. TB reports research support, paid to their institution from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Merck, and Novartis; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Janssen, and Sanofi/Aventis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, and Pfizer; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services, paid to their institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Servier. NSB reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Eisai, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, and Bayer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events (personal) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Merck; and support for attending meetings or travel from Eisai and Janssen. MJM-V reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Eisai, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, EUSA Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Roche. BM reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas, Novartis, Bayer, MSD, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Servier, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, Eisai, E Lilly, and Pierre Farbre; support for attending meetings or travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas, Novartis, Bayer, MSD, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Servier, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, Eisai, E Lilly, and Pierre Farbre. TH reports grants or contracts, paid to their institution, from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas Pharma, Bayer/Onyx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Pfizer. BMcG reports grants or contracts, paid to their institution from Exelixis, SeaGen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb and consulting fees from Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calithera, Eisai, Exelixis, Pfizer, and SeaGen. TP reports research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; support for attending meetings or travel Astra Zeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. VG reports grants or contracts, paid to their institution, from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen; consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Oncorena, PCI Biotech, Nanobiotix, Merck Serono, EUSA Pharm, Debiopharm, Eisai, and Apogepha; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Astellas; support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer and Merck; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Eisai, PharmaMar, and PharmaMar; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group from National Working Group AIO (Working Group on Internal Oncology in the German Cancer Society), German Cancer Society; and stock or stock options in AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and SeaGen. BA reports grants or contracts from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events: Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche; payment for expert testimony from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. SYR reports grants or contracts from Amgen, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Beigene, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Eisai; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Amgen, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Indivumed, Beigene, Eisai, and Daiichi Sankyo. AK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Eisai, Janssen, AbbVie; leadership or fiduciary role in for Kidney Cancer Canada; and stock in Verity Pharma. TAG reports grants or contracts from Pfizer, Roche, and Ipsen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Eisai, Bayer, Janssen, Sanofi, and Astellas. JCG reports consulting fees for an advisory board meeting from Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia), Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen–Cilag, Ipsen, Merck Sharp and Dohme (Australia), and AstraZeneca (Australia); and support for attending meetings or travel AstraZeneca (Australia), GlaxoSmithKline, and MSD. MS reports grants or contracts from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AVEO, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, Immatics, Wilex, Ipsen, Exelixis, and Eisai; consulting fees from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Bayer, Roche, Aveo, EUSA Pharm, Astellas, Ipsen, Exelixis, Pelloton, Eisai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Apogepha, and Oncorena; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AVEO, Novartis, Bayer, EUSA Pharma, Astellas, Ipsen, Exelixis, Pelloton, Eisai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Apogepha; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, EUSAPharm, Ipsen, Eisai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Apogepha. JRM reports grants or contracts, paid to their institution from Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Replimune, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Sillajen, Tizona Therapeutics, Tocagen, and Vyriad, and consulting fees from Exelixis. RX, KM, and JMcK are employees of Eisai. RFP is an employee of and holds stock in Merck, Rahway, NJ, USA. CGP reports consulting fees from Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, and MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, General Electric, Ipsen, and MSD; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, MSD, the European Society of Medical Oncology, and the Italian Association for Medical Oncology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints., Methods: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334., Findings: Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7-36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50-0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (<1%) participant in the placebo group. No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab., Interpretation: Updated results from KEYNOTE-564 support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy as a standard of care for participants with renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence after nephrectomy., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TP reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; research funding paid to institution from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. PT reports research funding from MSD. SHP reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Janssen Oncology and Lilly; and research funding from Ono Pharmaceutical. Bxports having served as a consultant or adviser for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer/EMD Serono; honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer; research funding paid to institution from Calithera Biosciences, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer/EMD Serono; serving as a speaker for Eisai, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from EUSA Pharma and Ipsen. TF reports research funding paid to institution from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and MSD; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, and Roche. SNS reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Bicycle Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boxer Capital, Duke Street Bio, Eisai, Ellipses Pharma, EMD Serono, EUSA Pharma, MedAnnex, MSD, Pfizer, and Vaccitech; having served as a speaker for Bristol Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, and Ipsen; research funding paid to institution from BiolineRx, BioNTech, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, MSD, Nouscom, Nucana, Roche, Sapience Therapeutics, Scancell, Sierra Oncology, and Verastem; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, and Ipsen. HG reports personal speaker fees from MSD; and personal advisory fees from MSD, Roche, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Ipsen. JLL reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, and Pfizer; having served as an advisr or consultant for Alteogen, AstraZeneca, BMS Korea, GI Innovation, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Aventis; research funding paid to institution from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer Schering Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Seattle Genetics; and owns stock in Amgen, BeiGene, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Innovent Biologics, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Myovant Sciences, and Zymeworks. NS reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, MSD, and Roche; having served as a speaker for Pfizer; and research funding from MSD. AT-V reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; having served as a consultant for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; research funding paid to institution from Pfizer; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. MG-G reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Amgen, Astellas Medivation, AstraZeneca, Bayer/Onyx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; research funding paid to institution from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Roche. MM reports research funding from MSD. NBH reports having served as a consultant or adviser for AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, Eisai, Exelixis, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech; and has provided expert testimony for Lilly. PS reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis; research funding paid to institution from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiltern, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Merrimack, MSD, Parexel, PAREXEL/Puma Biotechnology, PPD Global, Regeneron, and Tesaro; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pierre Fabre and Roche. JEB and LX are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA. KI is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, and owns stock in Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA. DIQ reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and US Biotest; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, MSD, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics; research funding paid to institution from Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Pfizer; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Japan, Exelexis, Merck, and Roche. TKC reports institutional and personal support, paid and unpaid support for research, participating in advisory boards, consultancy, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Nuscan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, UpToDate, and CME events (Peerview, OncLive, and MJH), outside the submitted work; institutional patents filed on molecular mutations, immunotherapy response and toxicity, and ctDNA; equity in Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio; being part of committees in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, GU Steering Committee, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, Academic and Community Cancer Research United, and KidneyCAN; having mentored several non-US citizens on research projects partly funded by non-US sources; and additional independent funding from drug companies or royalties for research around the subject matter paid to institution. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have few treatment options after novel hormonal therapy (eg, abiraterone or enzalutamide). We aimed to evaluate cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with immunomodulatory properties, in combination with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer., Methods: COSMIC-021 is an ongoing, multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study with a dose-escalation stage followed by tumour-specific expansion stages. Expansion cohort 6 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was enrolled at 42 cancer research centres in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with radiographic soft tissue progression following treatment with either enzalutamide or abiraterone, or both; measurable soft tissue disease per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1; and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day and intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg once every 3 weeks. Study treatment continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. All enrolled patients were assessed for efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint was objective response rate per RECIST version 1.1 as assessed by the investigator. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03170960., Findings: Between April 24, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 132 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. At data cutoff (Feb 19, 2021), median duration of follow-up was 15·2 months (IQR 9·6-21·7). Objective response rate was 23% (95% CI 17-32; 31 of 132 patients), with three (2%) confirmed complete responses and 28 (21%) confirmed partial responses. 72 (55%) of 132 patients had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, with the most common being pulmonary embolism (11 [8%] patients), diarrhoea (nine [7%]), fatigue (nine [7%]), and hypertension (nine [7%]). There was one grade 5 treatment-related adverse event (dehydration). 74 (56%) of 132 patients had serious adverse events of any causality. 28 (21%) of 132 patients had treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of either study drug., Interpretation: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab showed promising antitumour activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after novel hormonal therapy with an acceptable safety profile, supporting further evaluation of this combination., Funding: Exelixis., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NA has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Calithera, Clovis, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead, Jenssen, Merck, MEI Pharma, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics; and received research funding to his institution from AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Celldex, Clovis, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Jenssen, Medivation, Merck, Nektar, New Link Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus, Rexahn, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Tracon. BM has received grants to his institution from BMS, Calithera, Exelixis, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics; and personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Dendreon, EMD Serono, Eisai, Exelixis, Nektar, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics. BLM has acted in a consulting or advisor role for AbbVie, Astellas, AVEO Oncology, Bayer Oncology, BMS, Clovis, Exelixis, Janssen, Merck, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Tempus and has received grants to his institution from Bayer Oncology, BMS, Clovis, Exelixis, Genentech, and Peloton Therapeutics. TBD has acted in a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Exelixis, Janssen, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics. RRM has received personal fees from Exelixis; has acted in a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Caris, Dendreon, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sorrento Therapeutics, Tempus, and Vividion; and has received research funding from Bayer and Tempus. LP has received financing of scientific research from Pfizer, Exelixis, and Merck. RD has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, BMS, Exelixis, EMD Serono, Gilead, Hengrui, Hinova, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Pfizer, Propella, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics, and Tavanta. YL has received grants from Celsius, Janssen, and Roche and personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics. UV has received grants from BMS, Exelixis, Merck; and personal fees from AAA, Aveo, Bayer, BMS, Exelixis, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi. DC, AP, and MS are employees of Exelixis. TKC has received institutional and personal paid and unpaid support for research, advisory boards, consultancy, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Nuscan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, and others); has institutional patents filed on molecular mutations and immunotherapy response and ctDNA; has equity in Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, and NuscanDx; and has acted on committees for NCCN, GU Steering Committee, and ASCO/ESMO. SP has acted in a consulting or advisory role for F Hoffman LaRoche and received research funding to his institution from Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, Roche, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the primary analysis of CheckMate 9ER, nivolumab plus cabozantinib showed superior progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (median follow-up of 18·1 months). Here, we report extended follow-up of overall survival and updated efficacy and safety., Methods: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was done in 125 hospitals and cancer centres across 18 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed by the investigator, any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk category, and available tumour tissue for PD-L1 testing. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib (40 mg) orally once daily or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily (4 weeks per 6-week cycle). Randomisation, stratified by IMDC risk status, tumour PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, was done by permuted block within each stratum using a block size of four, via an interactive response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint (reported here as the preplanned final analysis according to the protocol). Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This ongoing study, closed to recruitment, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177., Findings: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 328 to the sunitinib group. With an extended follow-up (data cutoff of June 24, 2021; median 32·9 months [IQR 30·4-35·9]), median overall survival was 37·7 months (95% CI 35·5-not estimable) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 34·3 months (29·0-not estimable) in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·55-0·90], p=0·0043) and updated median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (12·8-19·8) versus 8·3 months (7·0-9·7; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·46-0·68], p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 208 (65%) of 320 patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus 172 (54%) of 320 with sunitinib. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (40 [13%] of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 39 [12%] of 320 in the sunitinib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (25 [8%] vs 26 [8%]), and diarrhoea (22 [7%] vs 15 [5%]). Grade 3-4 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 70 (22%) of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 31 (10%) of 320 in the cabozantinib group. One additional treatment-related death occurred with sunitinib (sudden death)., Interpretation: With extended follow-up and preplanned final overall survival analysis per protocol, nivolumab plus cabozantinib demonstrated improved efficacy versus sunitinib, further supporting the combination in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RJM reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; and institutional funding from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Pfizer. TP reports grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai; consulting fees from BMS, Merck, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Roche, Exelixis, MSD, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai; and travel support from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Ipsen. MB reports consulting fees from Roche/Genentech, BMS, MSD Oncology, Novartis, AstraZeneca; and speakers' bureau fees from Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, BMS, and AstraZeneca. BE reports an institutional research grant from BMS; consulting fees from Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, AVEO, Oncorena, and Eisai; honoraria from Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, Oncorena, and Eisai; and travel support from BMS, Ipsen, and MSD. MTB reports consulting fees from BMS, Asofarma, Eisai, MSD Oncology, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, Bayer, and Ferring; speakers' bureau fees from Asofarma, MSD Oncology, BMS, Bayer, Eisai, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, Ferring, Tecnofarma, Medicamenta, AstraZeneca, and Astellas Pharma; honoraria from BMS and Tecnofarma; payment for expert testimony from Asofarma; travel support from Asofarma, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, BMS Mexico, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Sanofi; and steering committee honoraria from BMS. AYS reports research grants from BMS, Eisai, 4D Pharma, and EMD Serono; consulting fees from Exelixis, BMS, Pfizer, and EMD Serono; and honoraria from Eisai and Oncology Information Group. CSu reports research grants from AB Science, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim España, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis; speakers' bureau fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, and Pfizer; and advisory board fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Hoffman-La Roche, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. AH reports advisory board fees from MSD and Janssen. CP reports consulting fees from Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, and MSD; speakers' bureau fees from BMS, EUSA Pharma, General Electric, Ipsen, and MSD; payment for expert testimony from EUSA Pharma and Pfizer; and travel support from Roche. CMH reports institutional research grant from BMS, and stock options from Telix Pharmaceuticals, Volpara Health Technologies, Alcidon, and Nanosonics. ERK reports a personal research grant from Medivation/Astellas; institutional research grant from BMS, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and Merck Serono; and stock options from Johnson & Johnson. HG reports advisory board fees from BMS, Ipsen, MSD, AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, Roche, and Merck Serono; speakers' bureau fees from Merck Serono; and travel support from AstraZeneca. YT reports institutional research grants from Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, and Astellas; and honoraria from BMS, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Astellas. JB reports institutional research grants from BMS, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche, Exelixis, Pfizer, and Seagen; consulting fees from BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, and Merck; and speakers' bureau fees from MSD Oncology, BMS, Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Roche. JZ and BS are employed by and have stock ownership in BMS. CSc is employed by and has stock ownership in Exelixis. TKC reports research grants, consulting fees, honoraria, and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Aravive, AVEO, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen, Janssen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, NiKang, Nuscan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, UpToDate, and continuing medical education events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, and others), outside the submitted work; institutional patents filed on molecular mutations and immunotherapy response, and circulating tumour DNA; leadership fees from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, US NCI Genitourinary Steering Committee, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and European Society for Medical Oncology; stock ownership in Pionyr, Tempest, Osel, and NuscanDx; other financial or non-financial interests include medical writing and editorial assistance support that might in part have been funded by communications companies; potential funding (in part) from non-US sources or foreign institutions for mentoring of several non-US citizens on research projects; independent funding by drug companies or royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter (institutional); and support 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, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. ABA declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Results from the phase 3 CLEAR study showed that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes from the CLEAR study., Methods: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study was done across 200 hospitals and cancer centres in 20 countries. Patients were required to be 18 years or older, with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher. Patients who had received previous systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma were not eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to lenvatinib (oral 20 mg per day) plus pembrolizumab (intravenous 200 mg every 21 days), lenvatinib (oral 18 mg per day) plus everolimus (oral 5 mg per day) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (oral 50 mg per day, 4 weeks on followed by 2 weeks off). Patients were assigned to treatments with a computer-generated randomisation scheme and were stratified by geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint, previously reported, was progression-free survival, and HRQOL was a secondary endpoint. Most HRQOL analyses were done in patients who underwent randomisation, received at least one dose of study treatment, and had any HRQOL data. Completion and compliance analyses were done in the full analysis set. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the EQ-5D-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) preference questionnaire were administered at baseline and on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 355 patients were randomly assigned to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 to the sunitinib group. Median follow-up for HRQOL analyses was 12·9 months (IQR 5·6-22·3). Because of the promising efficacy and safety results of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the first-line setting, we focus the HRQOL results in this report on that combination versus sunitinib. Mean change from baseline in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was -1·75 (SE 0·59) versus -2·19 (0·66) for FKSI-DRS, -5·93 (0·86) versus -6·73 (0·94) for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), and -4·96 (0·85) versus -6·64 (0·94) for the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS). Median time to first deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 9·14 weeks (95% CI 6·43-12·14) versus 12·14 weeks (9·14-15·29; HR 1·13 [95% CI 0·94-1·35], log-rank p=0·20) for FKSI-DRS, 12·00 weeks (7·29-15·14) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29-12·14; 0·88 [0·74-1·05], log-rank p=0·17) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 9·43 weeks (6·43-12·29) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29-12·00; 0·83 [0·70-0·99], log-rank p=0·041) for the EQ-5D VAS. Median time to definitive deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 134·14 weeks (95% CI 120·00-not estimable) versus 117·43 weeks (90·14-131·29; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·92], log-rank p=0·0081) for FKSI-DRS, 114·29 weeks (102·14-153·29) versus 75·14 weeks (57·29-105·14; 0·60 [0·47-0·77], log-rank p<0·0001) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 124·86 weeks (94·71-134·57) versus 74·86 weeks (54·14-96·00; 0·67 [0·53-0·85], log-rank p=0·0012) for the EQ-5D VAS. No outcomes on any of the instruments significantly favoured sunitinib over lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab. Most HRQOL comparisons of lenvatinib plus everolimus versus sunitinib were similar or favoured sunitinib., Interpretation: These HRQOL results demonstrate that patients given lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab treatment had similar or favourable scores compared with patients given sunitinib, particularly with respect to time to definitive deterioration. These results support the efficacy and safety profile of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma., Funding: Eisai (Nutley, NJ, USA) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co (Kenilworth, NJ, USA)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RM reports research funding (institutional) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Pfizer; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. CP reports consulting fees and honoraria from Angelini Farma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, General Electric, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, and Pfizer; expert testimony for EUSA Pharma and Pfizer; protocol steering committee membership for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, and MSD; and travel support from Roche. BA reports support for the present manuscript from Eisai; grants or contracts from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; consulting fees and honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; expert testimony for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; travel support from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas, Ipsen, and Janssen. SYR reports grants or contracts and honoraria from, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for, Eisai. TKC reports support for the present manuscript from Eisai and Merck; research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, and Takeda; patents filed, royalties, or other intellectual properties (no income as of current date) related to biomarkers of immune checkpoint blockers and circulating tumour DNA; consulting fees, honoraria, or advisory roles for Alexion, Analysis Group, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Cerulean, Corvus, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Heron Therapeutics, Infinity Pharma, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, IQVIA, Lilly, Merck, NCCN, NiKang, Novartis, Nuscan, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Tempest, Up-to-Date, Continuing Medical Education-related events (eg, OncLive, PVI, and MJH Life Sciences), US National Cancer Institute Genitourinary Steering Committee, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network; travel in relation to meetings, lectures, and advisory boards; stock ownership in Pionyr and Tempest. MJM-V reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, EISAI, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, EUSA Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Roche. AK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Eisai, Janssen, and AbbVie; leadership or fiduciary roles in other board, society, committee, or advocacy groups, paid or unpaid; being vice chair of Kidney Cancer Canada; and stock or stock options from Verity Pharma. JCG reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, MSD Australia (Merck), Ipsen, and Bristol Myers Squibb; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson); and stock or stock options from ICON Cancer Care, Australia. ME reports research funding from Kissei, Sanofi, Astellas, ONO, Takeda, and Bayer; and honoraria for lectures from MSD, ONO, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Janssen, and Merck. LB and JW are employees of RTI Health Solutions, which was contracted by Eisai, to perform statistical analyses reported in this manuscript. JJP and CSH are full-time employees of Eisai. TLS is a paid employee of and shareholder in Merck & Co. RFP is an employee and a stock owner of Merck & Co. KM is an employee of Eisai. DC reports consulting fees (personal) from Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Ipsen, and Evidera, and is president of FACIT.org. S-HH declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER., Methods: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment., Findings: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0-26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20-3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17-0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84-1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28-0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58-5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14-0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01-0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08-0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56-0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50-0·80], nominal p=0·0001)., Interpretation: PROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DC reports consultant fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Exelixis, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; reports licensing fees from FACIT.org; research grants (institutional) from AbbVie, Astellas, Aveo, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; and is an officer of FACIT.org. RJM reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; and principal investigator fees (institutional) from BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Pfizer. CS reports advisory board fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis; speakers' bureau fees from Astellas Pharma, BMS, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, and Pfizer; and research grants (institutional) from AB Science, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim España, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. SIB is an employee of BMS, and has stock ownership in BMS and GlaxoSmithKline. FE, MH, BS, and JZ are employees of and have stock ownership in BMS. JFW is an employee and has stock ownership in Exelixis. CI is an employee of IQVIA. TKC reports advisory board fees from Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, BMS, Calithera, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Infinity, Merck, Pfizer, and Surface Oncology; speaker's fees from Advent Health, ASCO-SITC, ASiM, CancerNet, Ipsen, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), MJH Life Sciences, PeerView, Physicians Education Resources, Research To Practice, Springer, and WebMD; consulting fees from The Analysis Group; stock ownership in Pionyr and Tempest; a personal grant from Orien; royalties from Up-To-Date online textbook; funding (institutional) from Alliance Cooperative Group, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Lilly, Merck, Peloton, Pfizer, Takeda, and Tracon; research grants (institutional) from BMS, Exelixis, and Roche; principal investigator fees (institutional) from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, and Surface Oncology; a non-financial leadership role interest with Kidney Cancer Research Summit of KidneyCAN (meeting co-chair in 2019 and 2020); being a grant reviewer for the American Association for Cancer Research; being a track leader, session chair, speaker, and discussant for the American Society of Clinical Oncology; being a speaker and discussant for the European Society for Medical Oncology; access to the genomic database from Foundation Medicine; access to the genomic database (institutional) from Guardant; access to the genomic database (institutional) from Invitae; personal non-financial interests for medical writing and editorial assistance from Clinical Thinking, Envision Pharma Group, Fishawack Group of Companies, Health Interactions, Parexel, and Oxford PharmaGenesis; and personal non-financial interests for reviews of papers for various journals. ABA declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Predictive biomarkers could allow more precise use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in treating advanced cancers. Given the central role of HLA molecules in immunity, variation at the HLA loci could differentially affect the response to ICIs. The aim of this epidemiological study was to determine the effect of HLA-A*03 as a biomarker for predicting response to immunotherapy., Methods: In this epidemiological study, we investigated the clinical outcomes (overall survival, progression free survival, and objective response rate) after treatment for advanced cancer in eight cohorts of patients: three observational cohorts of patients with various types of advanced tumours (the Memorial Sloan Kettering Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets [MSK-IMPACT] cohort, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute [DFCI] Profile cohort, and The Cancer Genome Atlas) and five clinical trials of patients with advanced bladder cancer (JAVELIN Solid Tumour) or renal cell carcinoma (CheckMate-009, CheckMate-010, CheckMate-025, and JAVELIN Renal 101). In total, these cohorts included 3335 patients treated with various ICI agents (anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, and anti-CTLA-4 inhibitors) and 10 917 patients treated with non-ICI cancer-directed therapeutic approaches. We initially modelled the association of HLA amino-acid variation with overall survival in the MSK-IMPACT discovery cohort, followed by a detailed analysis of the association between HLA-A*03 and clinical outcomes in MSK-IMPACT, with replication in the additional cohorts (two further observational cohorts and five clinical trials)., Findings: HLA-A*03 was associated in an additive manner with reduced overall survival after ICI treatment in the MSK-IMPACT cohort (HR 1·48 per HLA-A*03 allele [95% CI 1·20-1·82], p=0·00022), the validation DFCI Profile cohort (HR 1·22 per HLA-A*03 allele, 1·05-1·42; p=0·0097), and in the JAVELIN Solid Tumour clinical trial for bladder cancer (HR 1·36 per HLA-A*03 allele, 1·01-1·85; p=0·047). The HLA-A*03 effect was observed across ICI agents and tumour types, but not in patients treated with alternative therapies. Patients with HLA-A*03 had shorter progression-free survival in the pooled patient population from the three CheckMate clinical trials of nivolumab for renal cell carcinoma (HR 1·31, 1·01-1·71; p=0·044), but not in those receiving control (everolimus) therapies. Objective responses were observed in none of eight HLA-A*03 homozygotes in the ICI group (compared with 59 [26·6%] of 222 HLA-A*03 non-carriers and 13 (17·1%) of 76 HLA-A*03 heterozygotes). HLA-A*03 was associated with shorter progression-free survival in patients receiving ICI in the JAVELIN Renal 101 randomised clinical trial for renal cell carcinoma (avelumab plus axitinib; HR 1·59 per HLA-A*03 allele, 1·16-2·16; p=0·0036), but not in those receiving control (sunitinib) therapy. Objective responses were recorded in one (12·5%) of eight HLA-A*03 homozygotes in the ICI group (compared with 162 [63·8%] of 254 HLA-A*03 non-carriers and 40 [55·6%] of 72 HLA-A*03 heterozygotes). HLA-A*03 was associated with impaired outcome in meta-analysis of all 3335 patients treated with ICI at genome-wide significance (p=2·01 × 10 -8 ) with no evidence of heterogeneity in effect (I 2 0%, 95% CI 0-0·76) INTERPRETATION: HLA-A*03 is a predictive biomarker of poor response to ICI. Further evaluation of HLA-A*03 is warranted in randomised trials. HLA-A*03 carriage could be considered in decisions to initiate ICI in patients with cancer., Funding: National Institutes of Health, Merck KGaA, and Pfizer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DAB reports non-financial support from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from LM Education Exchange Servies, Octane Global, Defined Health, Dedham Group, Adept Field Solutions, Slingshot Insights, Blueprint Parnterships, Charles River Associates, Trinity Group, Insight Strategy, Exelixis, MDedge, and Schlesinger Associates, outside the submitted work. KC reports employment at EMD Serono during the conduct of the study. MW-R reports employment and stock ownership at Bristol Myers Squibb. XJM reports employment, compensation, and stock ownedship in Pfizer. PBR reports employment from Pfizer during the conduct of the study. TKC reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Pfizer, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Lilly, and EMD Serono, and grants from Dana-Farber, Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE, outside the submitted work. JLG reports being party to a cooperative research and development agreement with EMD Serono, during the conduct of the study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting., Methods: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment., Findings: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related., Interpretation: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories., Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cabozantinib is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma on the basis of studies done in clear-cell histology. The activity of cabozantinib in patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma is poorly characterised. We sought to analyse the antitumour activity and toxicity of cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma., Methods: We did a multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study of patients with metastatic non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with oral cabozantinib during any treatment line at 22 centres: 21 in the USA and one in Belgium. Eligibility required patients with histologically confirmed non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma who received cabozantinib for metastatic disease during any treatment line roughly between 2015 and 2018. Mixed tumours with a clear-cell histology component were excluded. No other restrictive inclusion criteria were applied. Data were obtained from retrospective chart review by investigators at each institution. Demographic, surgical, pathological, and systemic therapy data were captured with uniform database templates to ensure consistent data collection. The main objectives were to estimate the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, time to treatment failure, and overall survival after treatment., Findings: Of 112 identified patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated at the participating centres, 66 (59%) had papillary histology, 17 (15%) had Xp11.2 translocation histology, 15 (13%) had unclassified histology, ten (9%) had chromophobe histology, and four (4%) had collecting duct histology. The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response across all histologies was 30 (27%, 95% CI 19-36) of 112 patients. At a median follow-up of 11 months (IQR 6-18), median time to treatment failure was 6·7 months (95% CI 5·5-8·6), median progression-free survival was 7·0 months (5·7-9·0), and median overall survival was 12·0 months (9·2-17·0). The most common adverse events of any grade were fatigue (58 [52%]), and diarrhoea (38 [34%]). The most common grade 3 events were skin toxicity (rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia; five [4%]) and hypertension (four [4%]). No treatment-related deaths were observed. Across 54 patients with available next-generation sequencing data, the most frequently altered somatic genes were CDKN2A (12 [22%]) and MET (11 [20%]) with responses seen irrespective of mutational status., Interpretation: While we await results from prospective studies, this real-world study provides evidence supporting the antitumour activity and safety of cabozantinib across non-clear-cell renal cell carcinomas. Continued support of international collaborations and prospective ongoing studies targeting non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes and specific molecular alterations are warranted to improve outcomes across these rare diseases with few evidence-based treatment options., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk model is an established prognostic tool for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma that integrates clinical and laboratory data, but is agnostic to tumour genomics. Several mutations, including BAP1 and PBRM1, have prognostic value in renal-cell carcinoma. Using two independent clinical trial datasets of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, we aimed to study whether the addition of the mutation status for several candidate prognostic genes to the MSKCC model could improve the model's prognostic performance., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we used available formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour tissue and clinical outcome data from patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma assigned to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the COMPARZ trial (training cohort; n=357) and RECORD-3 trial (validation cohort; n=258). Eligible patients in both trials were treatment-naive; had histologically confirmed, advanced, or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma; and a Karnofsky performance status score of at least 70. For each cohort, data from patients in all treatment groups (sunitinib and pazopanib in the training cohort, and everolimus and sunitinib in the validation cohort) were pooled for this analysis. In the training cohort, tumour tissue was used to evaluate somatic mutations by next-generation sequencing, and the association between cancer-specific outcomes (overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response) and the mutation status of six genes of interest (BAP1, PBRM1, TP53, TERT, KDM5C, and SETD2) was tested. Only those genes with prognostic value in this setting were added to the MSKCC risk model to create a genomically annotated version. The validation cohort was used to independently test the prognostic value of the annotated model compared with the original MSKCC risk model., Findings: 357 (32%) of 1110 patients assigned to protocol treatment in the COMPARZ study between August, 2008, and September, 2011, were evaluable for mutation status and clinical outcomes in the training cohort. The independent validation cohort included 258 (55%) of 471 evaluable patients, enrolled between October, 2009, and June, 2011, on the RECORD-3 study. In the training cohort, the presence of any mutation in BAP1 or TP53, or both, and absence of any mutation in PBRM1 were prognostic in terms of overall survival (TP53 wt /BAP1 mut , TP53 mut /BAP1 wt o TP53 mut /BAP1 mut vs TP53 wt /BAP1 wt hazard ratio [HR] 1·57, 95% CI 1·21-2·04; p=0·0008; PBRM1 wt vs PBRM mut , HR 1·58, 1·16-2·14; p=0·0035). The mutation status for these three prognostic genes were added to the original MSKCC risk model to create a genomically annotated version. Distribution of participants in the training cohort into the three risk groups of the original MSKCC model changed from 87 (24%) of 357 patients deemed at favourable risk, 217 (61%) at intermediate risk, and 53 (15%) at poor risk, to distribution across four risk groups in the genomically annotated risk model, with 36 (10%) of 357 deemed at favourable risk, 77 (22%) at good risk, 108 (30%) at intermediate risk, and 136 (38%) at poor risk. Addition of genomic information improved model performance for predicting overall survival (C-index: original model, 0·595 [95% CI 0·557-0·634] vs new model, 0·637 [0·595-0·679]) and progression-free survival (0·567 [95% CI 0·529-0·604] vs 0·602 [0·560-0·643]) with adequate discrimination of the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response (Cochran-Armitage one-sided p=0·0014). Analyses in the validation cohort confirmed the superiority of the genomically annotated risk model over the original version., Interpretation: The mutation status of BAP1, PBRM1, and TP53 has independent prognostic value in patients with advanced or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Improved stratification of patients across risk groups by use of a genomically annotated model including the mutational status of these three genes warrants further investigation in prospective trials and could be of use as a model to stratify patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma in clinical trials., Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, MSKCC Support Grant/Core Grant, and the J Randall & Kathleen L MacDonald Research Fund., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma should be tailored to the circumstances and preferences of the individual patient. Age should not be a barrier to effective treatment. Systematic geriatric screening and assessment contributes to the goal of personalised management, in addition to the involvement of a multidisciplinary team. A task force from the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) updated its 2009 consensus statement on the management of elderly patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma by reviewing data from studies involving recently approved targeted drugs and immunotherapies for this disease. Overall, it seems that age alone does not appreciably affect efficacy. Among the pivotal studies that were included, there is a striking scarcity of analyses that relate toxic effects to patient age. Even if the adverse effects of therapy are no more frequent or severe in elderly patients than in their younger counterparts, the practical, psychological, and functional impact of treatment may be greater, especially if toxic effects are chronic and cumulative., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a VEGF pathway inhibitor to treat patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma might increase the clinical benefit of these drugs compared with their use alone. Here, we report preliminary results for the combination of avelumab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody against the programmed cell death protein ligand PD-L1, and axitinib, a VEGF receptor inhibitor approved for second-line treatment of advanced renal-cell carcinoma, in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma., Methods: The JAVELIN Renal 100 study is an ongoing open-label, multicentre, dose-finding, and dose-expansion, phase 1b study, done in 14 centres in the USA, UK, and Japan. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan) and had histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced renal-cell carcinoma with clear-cell component, life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, received no previous systemic treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma, and had a resected primary tumour. Patients enrolled into the dose-finding phase received 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily for 7 days, followed by combination therapy with 10 mg/kg avelumab intravenously every 2 weeks and 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily. Based on the pharmacokinetic data from the dose-finding phase, ten additional patients were enrolled into the dose-expansion phase and assigned to this regimen. The other patients in the dose-expansion phase started taking combination therapy directly. The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicities in the first 4 weeks (two cycles) of treatment with avelumab plus axitinib. Safety and antitumour activity analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of avelumab or axitinib. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02493751., Findings: Between Oct 30, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, we enrolled six patients into the dose-finding phase and 49 into the dose-expansion phase of the study. One dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 proteinuria due to axitinib was reported among the six patients treated during the dose-finding phase. At the cutoff date (April 13, 2017), six (100%, 95% CI 54-100) of six patients in the dose-finding phase and 26 (53%, 38-68) of 49 patients in the dose-expansion phase had confirmed objective responses (32 [58%, 44-71] of all 55 patients). 32 (58%) of 55 patients had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events, the most frequent being hypertension in 16 (29%) patients and increased concentrations of alanine aminotransferase, amylase, and lipase, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome in four (7%) patients each. Six (11%) of 55 patients died before data cutoff, five (9%) due to disease progression and one (2%) due to treatment-related autoimmune myocarditis. At the end of the dose-finding phase, the maximum tolerated dose established for the combination was avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks and axitinib 5 mg twice daily., Interpretation: The safety profile of the combination avelumab plus axitinib in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma seemed to be manageable and consistent with that of each drug alone, and the preliminary data on antitumour activity are encouraging. A phase 3 trial is assessing avelumab and axitinib compared with sunitinib monotherapy., Funding: Pfizer and Merck., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous studies combining PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors with tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the VEGF pathway have been characterised by excess toxicity, precluding further development. We hypothesised that axitinib, a more selective VEGF inhibitor than others previously tested, could be combined safely with pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) and yield antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma., Methods: In this ongoing, open-label, phase 1b study, which was done at ten centres in the USA, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had advanced renal cell carcinoma (predominantly clear cell subtype) with their primary tumour resected, and at least one measureable lesion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, controlled hypertension, and no previous systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma. Eligible patients received axitinib plus pembrolizumab in a dose-finding phase to estimate the maximum tolerated dose, and additional patients were enrolled into a dose-expansion phase to further establish safety and determine preliminary efficacy. Axitinib 5 mg was administered orally twice per day with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg given intravenously every 3 weeks. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib or pembrolizumab; antitumour activity was assessed in all patients who received study treatment and had an adequate baseline tumour assessment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed dose-limiting toxicity during the first two cycles (6 weeks) to estimate the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02133742., Findings: Between Sept 23, 2014, and March 25, 2015, we enrolled 11 patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma to the dose-finding phase and between June 3, 2015, and Oct 13, 2015, we enrolled 41 patients to the dose-expansion phase. All 52 patients were analysed together. No unexpected toxicities were observed. Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the 11 patients treated during the 6-week observation period (dose-finding phase): one patient had a transient ischaemic attack and two patients were only able to complete less than 75% of the planned axitinib dose because of treatment-related toxicity. At the data cutoff date (March 31, 2017), 25 (48%) patients were still receiving study treatment. Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (65%) patients; the most common included hypertension (n=12 [23%]), diarrhoea (n=5 [10%]), fatigue (n=5 [10%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=4 [8%]). The most common potentially immune-related adverse events (probably related to pembrolizumab) included diarrhoea (n=15 [29%]), increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=9 [17%]) or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (n=7 [13%]), hypothyroidism (n=7 [13%]), and fatigue (n=6 [12%]). 28 (54%) patients had treatment-related serious adverse events. At data cutoff, 38 (73%; 95% CI 59·0-84·4) patients achieved an objective response (complete or partial response)., Interpretation: The treatment combination of axitinib plus pembrolizumab is tolerable and shows promising antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. Whether or not the combination works better than a sequence of VEGF pathway inhibition followed by an anti-PD-1 therapy awaits the completion of a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib monotherapy (NCT02853331)., Funding: Pfizer Inc., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, VEGFR, and AXL. The randomised phase 3 METEOR trial compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib versus the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. Here, we report the final overall survival results from this study based on an unplanned second interim analysis., Methods: In this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years and older with advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease, and previous treatment with one or more VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to receive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice and web response system. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and the number of previous treatments with VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned patients and has been previously reported. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response in all randomly assigned patients assessed by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The study is closed for enrolment but treatment and follow-up of patients is ongoing for long-term safety evaluation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865747., Findings: Between Aug 8, 2013, and Nov 24, 2014, 658 patients were randomly assigned to receive cabozantinib (n=330) or everolimus (n=328). The median duration of follow-up for overall survival and safety was 18·7 months (IQR 16·1-21·1) in the cabozantinib group and 18·8 months (16·0-21·2) in the everolimus group. Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 18·7-not estimable) with cabozantinib and 16·5 months (14·7-18·8) with everolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·53-0·83]; p=0·00026). Cabozantinib treatment also resulted in improved progression-free survival (HR 0·51 [95% CI 0·41-0·62]; p<0·0001) and objective response (17% [13-22] with cabozantinib vs 3% [2-6] with everolimus; p<0·0001) per independent radiology review among all randomised patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (49 [15%] in the cabozantinib group vs 12 [4%] in the everolimus group), diarrhoea (43 [13%] vs 7 [2%]), fatigue (36 [11%] vs 24 [7%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (27 [8%] vs 3 [1%]), anaemia (19 [6%] vs 53 [17%]), hyperglycaemia (3 [1%] vs 16 [5%]), and hypomagnesaemia (16 [5%] vs none). Serious adverse events grade 3 or worse occurred in 130 (39%) patients in the cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group. One treatment-related death occurred in the cabozantinib group (death; not otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneumonia aspiration)., Interpretation: Treatment with cabozantinib increased overall survival, delayed disease progression, and improved the objective response compared with everolimus. Based on these results, cabozantinib should be considered as a new standard-of-care treatment option for previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients should be monitored for adverse events that might require dose modifications., Funding: Exelixis Inc., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare, aggressive cancer for which few treatment options are available. Linsitinib (OSI-906) is a potent, oral small molecule inhibitor of both IGF-1R and the insulin receptor, which has shown acceptable tolerability and preliminary evidence of anti-tumour activity. We assessed linsitinib against placebo to investigate efficacy in patients with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma., Methods: In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, adult patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma were recruited at clinical sites in nine countries. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) twice-daily 150 mg oral linsitinib or placebo via a web-based, centralised randomisation system and stratified according to previous systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy for adrenocortical carcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and use of one or more oral antihyperglycaemic therapy at randomisation. Allocation was concealed by blinded block size and permuted block randomisation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, calculated from date of randomisation until death from any cause. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00924989., Findings: Between Dec 2, 2009, and July 11, 2011, 139 patients were enrolled, of whom 90 were assigned to linsitinib and 49 to placebo. The trial was unblinded on March 19, 2012, based on data monitoring committee recommendation due to the failure of linsitinib to increase either progression-free survival or overall survival. At database lock and based on 92 deaths, no difference in overall survival was noted between linsitinib and placebo (median 323 days [95% CI 256-507] vs 356 days [249-556]; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·61-1·44]; p=0·77). The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse in the linsitinib group were fatigue (three [3%] patients vs no patients in the placebo group), nausea (two [2%] vs none), and hyperglycaemia (two [2%] vs none). No adverse events in the linsitinib group were deemed to be treatment related; one death (due to sepsis and megacolon) in the placebo group was deemed to be treatment related., Interpretation: Linsitinib did not increase overall survival and so cannot be recommended as treatment for this general patient population. Further studies of IGF-1R and insulin receptor inhibitors, together with genetic profiling of responders, might pave the way toward individualised and improved therapeutic options in adrenocortical carcinoma., Funding: Astellas., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous prognostic models for second-line systemic therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma have not been studied in the setting of targeted therapy. We sought to validate the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving next-line targeted therapy after progression on first-line targeted therapy., Methods: In this population-based study, we analysed patients who received second-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma at 19 centres in Canada, USA, Greece, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Denmark. The primary endpoint was overall survival since the initiation of second-line therapy. We compared the prognostic performance of the IMDC model with the three-factor MSKCC model used for previously treated patients for overall survival since the start of second-line targeted therapy., Findings: Between Jan 1, 2005, and Nov 30, 2012, we included 1021 patients treated with second-line targeted therapy. Median overall survival since the start of second-line targeted therapy was 12·5 months (95% CI 11·3-14·3). Five of six predefined factors in the IMDC model (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, Karnofsky performance status [KPS] <80, and <1 year from diagnosis to first-line targeted therapy) were independent predictors of poor overall survival on multivariable analysis. The concordance index using all six prognostic factors (ie, also including hypercalcaemia) was 0·70 (95% CI 0·67-0·72) with the IMDC model and was 0·66 (95% CI 0·64-0·68) with the three-factor MSKCC model. When patients were divided into three risk categories using IMDC criteria, median overall survival was 35·3 months (95% CI 28·3-47·8) in the favourable risk group (n=76), 16·6 months (14·9-17·9) in the intermediate risk group (n=529), and 5·4 months (4·7-6·8) in the poor risk group (n=261)., Interpretation: The IMDC prognostic model can be applied to patients previously treated with targeted therapy, in addition to previously validated populations in first-line targeted therapy. The IMDC prognostic model in the second-line targeted therapy setting has an improved prognostic performance and is applicable to a more contemporary patient cohort than that of the three-factor MSKCC model., Funding: DF/HCC Kidney Cancer SPORE P50 CA101942-01, Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada, Canadian Institute for Health Research, Trust Family, Loker Pinard, Michael Brigham, and Gerald DeWulf., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model offers prognostic information for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We tested the accuracy of the model in an external population and compared it with other prognostic models., Methods: We included patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were treated with first-line VEGF-targeted treatment at 13 international cancer centres and who were registered in the Consortium's database but had not contributed to the initial development of the Consortium Database model. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We compared the Database Consortium model with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) model, the International Kidney Cancer Working Group (IKCWG) model, the French model, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model by concordance indices and other measures of model fit., Findings: Overall, 1028 patients were included in this study, of whom 849 had complete data to assess the Database Consortium model. Median overall survival was 18·8 months (95% 17·6-21·4). The predefined Database Consortium risk factors (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, hypercalcaemia, Karnofsky performance status <80%, and <1 year from diagnosis to treatment) were independent predictors of poor overall survival in the external validation set (hazard ratios ranged between 1·27 and 2·08, concordance index 0·71, 95% CI 0·68-0·73). When patients were segregated into three risk categories, median overall survival was 43·2 months (95% CI 31·4-50·1) in the favourable risk group (no risk factors; 157 patients), 22·5 months (18·7-25·1) in the intermediate risk group (one to two risk factors; 440 patients), and 7·8 months (6·5-9·7) in the poor risk group (three or more risk factors; 252 patients; p<0·0001; concordance index 0·664, 95% CI 0·639-0·689). 672 patients had complete data to test all five models. The concordance index of the CCF model was 0·662 (95% CI 0·636-0·687), of the French model 0·640 (0·614-0·665), of the IKCWG model 0·668 (0·645-0·692), and of the MSKCC model 0·657 (0·632-0·682). The reported versus predicted number of deaths at 2 years was most similar in the Database Consortium model compared with the other models., Interpretation: The Database Consortium model is now externally validated and can be applied to stratify patients by risk in clinical trials and to counsel patients about prognosis., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Germline genetic polymorphisms might affect the risk of recurrence in patients with localised renal-cell carcinoma. We investigated the association between genetic polymorphisms and recurrence of renal-cell carcinoma., Methods: We analysed germline DNA samples extracted from patients with localised renal-cell carcinoma treated at the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (Boston, MA, USA). We selected a discovery cohort from a prospective database at the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and selected a validation cohort from department records at the Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, MA, USA). We validated the findings from the discovery cohort in the validation cohort. We genotyped 70 genes involved in the pathogenesis of renal-cell carcinoma (including the VHL/HIF/VEGF and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways, and genes involved in immune regulation and metabolism) for single nucleotide polymorphisms. We assessed the association between genotype and recurrence-free survival, adjusted for baseline characteristics, with the Cox proportional hazards model, the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test. We used a false discovery rate q value to adjust for multiple comparisons., Findings: We included 554 patients (403 in the discovery cohort and 151 in the validation cohort). We successfully genotyped 290 single nucleotide polymorphisms in the discovery cohort, but excluded five because they did not have a variant group for comparison. The polymorphism rs11762213, which causes a synonymous aminoacid change in MET (144G→A, located in exon 2), was associated with recurrence-free survival. Patients with one or two copies of the minor (risk) allele had an increased risk of recurrence or death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·86, 95% CI 1·17-2·95; p=0·0084) in multivariate analysis. Median recurrence-free survival for carriers of the risk allele was 19 months (95% CI 9-not reached) versus 50 months (95% CI 37-75) for patients without the risk allele. In the validation cohort the HR was 2·45 (95% CI 1·01-5·95; p=0·048)., Interpretation: Patients with localised renal-cell carcinoma and the MET polymorphism rs11762213 might have an increased risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. If these results are further validated in a similar population, they could be incorporated into future prognostic instruments, potentially aiding the design of adjuvant clinical trials of MET inhibitors and management of renal-cell carcinoma., Funding: Conquer Cancer Foundation and American Society of Clinical Oncology (Career Development Award); The Trust Family Research Fund for Kidney Cancer; US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute Kidney Cancer Specialized Program of Research Excellence., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The advent of targeted therapies in the past 7 years has extended median survival for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. This improvement in clinical outcome has created a need for new, more accurate prognostic measures. We assessed the use of conditional survival--a measure that accounts for elapsed time since treatment initiation--for prognostication in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma treated with first-line VEGF-targeted therapies., Methods: We obtained data for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were treated with a first-line VEGF-targeted therapy between April 7, 2003, and Oct 12, 2010, from our large multi-institutional International mRCC Database Consortium (centres in Canada, the USA, Singapore, Denmark, and South Korea). All histologies, performance statuses, and prognostic risk groups were included. The primary outcome was 2-year conditional survival, defined as the probability of surviving an additional 2 years from a given timepoint since the start of targeted therapy. Secondary analyses included 1-year and 3-year conditional survival, along with stratification of patients by Heng prognostic risk criteria and Karnofsky performance score, and conditional survival based on length of time on therapy. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and a landmark analysis to calculate conditional survival., Findings: In the 1673 patients analysed, median follow-up for alive patients was 20·1 months (IQR 9·0-34·4). We recorded an increase in the 2-year conditional survival probability from 44% (95% CI 41-47) at 0 months to 51% (46-55) at 18 months since beginning targeted therapy. When stratified by the Heng prognostic risk criteria defined at therapy initiation, 2-year conditional survival changed little in the favourable and intermediate groups, but in the poor-risk group, 2-year conditional survival improved from 11% (8-15) at 0 months to 33% (18-48) after 18 months. When conditioned on time on targeted therapy from 0 months to 18 months, 2-year conditional survival improved from 44% (41-47) to 68% (60-75) in the overall population and from 74% (68-79) to 90% (77-96) in the favourable group, 49% (45-53) to 57% (45-67) in the intermediate group, and 11% (8-15) to 73% (43-89) in the poor risk group., Interpretation: Conditional survival is a clinically useful prediction measure that adjusts prognosis of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma on the basis of survival since treatment initiation or therapy duration. Conditional survival might be especially relevant to adjust prognosis for poor-risk patients., Funding: The Trust Family Fund for Kidney Cancer Research., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sunitinib and sorafenib are oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine-kinase inhibitors used in various cancers. Bleeding has been described with these agents, although the overall risk remains unclear. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate the incidence and relative risk associated with use of sunitinib and sorafenib., Methods: We searched PubMed (from January, 1966, to April, 2009) and meeting proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology (2004-09) for relevant clinical trials. Eligible studies included phase 2 and 3 trials and expanded-access programmes. Statistical analyses were done to calculate summary incidences, relative risks, and 95% CI, using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of included studies., Findings: 23 trials were selected for the meta-analysis, yielding a total of 6779 patients. The incidence of bleeding events (all grades) was 16.7% (95% CI 12.7-21.5), and that of high-grade events was 2.4% (1.6-3.9). The relative risk of all-grade bleeding events associated with sunitinib and sorafenib (for randomised controlled trials only) was 2.0 (1.14-3.49; p=0.015). Our analysis was also stratified by underlying malignant disease (renal-cell carcinoma vs non-renal-cell carcinoma) and agent used, but no differences were recorded., Interpretation: Treatment with the VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors sunitinib and sorafenib is associated with a significant increase in risk of bleeding., Funding: None.