Search

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has demonstrated efficacy in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) randomized trials. OBJECTIVE: To explore the real-world effectiveness of cabozantinib in pretreated patients with mRCC, including patients who progressed on immune-oncology checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. METHODS: Using the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis), patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib monotherapy as second-line or later from January 1, 2011 to September 1, 2019 were identified. Patients were stratified based on line of cabozantinib received. We reported overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF) and disease control rate (DCR). Prognostic variables were analyzed using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: 157 patients received cabozantinib (median TTF 8.0 months; median OS 15.8 months): 37 (24%) in the second line (median TTF 10.4 months; median OS 18.9 months) 66 (42%) in third line (median TTF 5.9 months; median OS 13.3 months) and 54 (34%) in either 4th or 5th line (median TTF 9.4 months; median OS 16.8 months). One hundred sixteen patients (74%) received cabozantinib after prior ICI therapy (median TTF of 7.6 months; median OS of 15.8 months). DCR in all patients was 63% with 46%, 65% and 72% in 2nd line, 3rd line and 4th/5th line patients respectively. DCR in patients who received cabozantinib after prior ICI therapy was 64%. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib is effective in a real-world, unselected population of mRCC patients, including in those who have progressed on prior ICI therapy, and in those exposed to multiple lines of therapy.

Background International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups are important when considering therapeutic options for first-line treatment. Materials and Methods Adult patients with clear cell mRCC initiating first-line sunitinib between 2010 and 2018 were included in this retrospective database study. Median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Outcomes were stratified by IMDC risk groups and evaluated for those in the combined intermediate and poor risk group and separately for those in the intermediate risk group with one versus two risk factors. Results Among 1,769 patients treated with first-line sunitinib, 318 (18%) had favorable, 1,031 (58%) had intermediate, and 420 (24%) had poor IMDC risk. Across the three risk groups, patients had similar age, gender, and sunitinib initiation year. Median TTD was 15.0, 8.5, and 4.2 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 7.1 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS was 52.1, 31.5, and 9.8 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 23.2 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS (35.1 vs. 21.9 months) and TTD (10.3 vs. 6.6 months) were significantly different between intermediate risk patients with one versus two risk factors. Conclusion This real-world study found a median OS of 52 months for patients with favorable IMDC risk treated with first-line sunitinib, setting a new benchmark on clinical outcomes of clear cell mRCC. Analysis of intermediate risk group by one or two risk factors demonstrated distinct clinical outcomes. Implications for Practice This analysis offers a contemporary benchmark for overall survival (median, 52.1 months; 95% confidence interval, 43.4–61.2) among patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy in a real-world setting and classified as favorable risk according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification. This study demonstrates that clinical outcomes differ between IMDC risk groups as well as within the intermediate risk group based on the number of risk factors, thus warranting further consideration of risk group when counseling patients about therapeutic options and designing clinical trials.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of rechallenge with sunitinib and other targeted therapies (TTs) in patitents with relapsed recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the advanced setting. Methods: In this multi-institutional retrospective study, patients with relapsed RCC were rechallenged with sunitinib or other systemic TTs as a first-line therapeutic approach after failed adjuvant sunitinib treatment. Patient characteristics, treatments and clinical outcomes were recorded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 34 patients with relapses were recorded, and 25 of these (73.5%) were men. Twenty-five patients were treated with systemic TT: 65% of patients received TT against the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (including sunitinib), 21.7% received mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and 13% received immunotherapy. The median (interquartile range) time to relapse was 20.3 (5.2–20.4) months from diagnosis, and 7.5 months (1.0–8.5) from the end of adjuvant suntinib treatment. At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, 24 of the 25 patients had progressed on first-line systemic therapy. The median PFS was 12.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.78–18.2). There were no statistical differences in PFS between different treatments or sunitinib rechallenge. PFS was not statistically different in patients relapsing on or after adjuvant suntinib treatment (≤ 6 or >6 months after adjuvant suntinib ending). The ORR was 20.5%. The median OS was 29.1 months (95% CI 16.4–41.8). Conclusions: Rechallenge with sunitinib or other systemic therapies is still a feasible therapeutic option that provides patients with advanced or metastastic RCC with additional clinical benefits with regard to PFS and OS after failed response to adjuvant sunitinib.

Although tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are widely used in the metastatic setting, they have shown more limited effectiveness in the adjuvant setting. Despite multiple clinical trials, there has been no improvement in overall survival (OS) with the use of these agents as adjuvant therapy, and conflicting data on disease-free survival (DFS). We carried out a meta-analysis of available phase III randomized clinical trials on adjuvant TKIs in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Primary end points of our study were the effect of adjuvant TKIs on OS and DFS in the overall population. Furthermore, we investigated if use of adjuvant TKIs resulted in improved DFS among patients with different risk of tumor relapse. Higher-risk patients were patients with 1 or more of the following features: positive nodes (N+), T4 tumors and T3 tumors, with higher Fuhrman grades (3-4). We adopted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to carry out our study. In the overall population, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) of OS and DFS was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.04) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.93), respectively. In the low- and high-risk populations, the pooled DFS HR was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.82-1.17) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.97), respectively. Adjuvant use of TKIs do not appear to provide a statistically significant OS benefit. However, a benefit in DFS has been observed in overall and high-risk populations, suggesting that better selection of patients might be important for the evaluation of adjuvant therapies in RCC.

In the present study, we explored the real-world efficacy of the immuno-oncology checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in the second-line setting. Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (imdc) dataset, a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in the second line after prior therapy targeted to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (vegfr) was performed. Baseline characteristics and imdc risk factors were collected. Overall survival (os) and time to treatment failure (ttf) were calculated using Kaplan&ndash, Meier curves. Overall response rates (orrs) were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences between cabozantinib and nivolumab treatment. The analysis included 225 patients treated with nivolumab and 53 treated with cabozantinib. No significant difference in median os was observed: 22.10 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 17.18 months to not reached] with nivolumab and 23.70 months (95% ci: 15.52 months to not reached) with cabozantinib (p = 0.61). The ttf was also similar at 6.90 months (95% ci: 4.60 months to 9.20 months) with nivolumab and 7.39 months (95% ci: 5.52 months to 12.85 months) with cabozantinib (p = 0.20). The adjusted hazard ratio (hr) for nivolumab compared with cabozantinib was 1.30 (95% ci: 0.73 to 2.3), p = 0.38. When adjusted by imdc criteria and age, the hr was 1.32 (95% ci: 0.74 to 2.38), p = 0.35. Real-world imdc data indicate comparable os and ttf for nivolumab and cabozantinib. Both agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line vegfr-targeted therapy.

BACKGROUND: Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies have changed the treatment standards of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the effectiveness of targeted therapy following discontinuation of IO therapy in real-world settings has not been well studied.OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment sequence and assess clinical effectiveness of targeted therapy for mRCC patients who received prior IO therapy.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study using data from eight international cancer centers was conducted. Patients with mRCC were ≥18yr old, received IO therapy in any line, and initiated targeted therapy following IO therapy discontinuation.INTERVENTION: Patients were treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORIs).OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. Models were adjusted for age, sex, therapy line, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk group.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 314 patients, 276 (87.9%) and 38 (12.1%) were treated with VEGFR-TKI and mTORI therapy, respectively. The most common tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments were axitinib, cabozantinib, and sunitinib following IO therapy. In adjusted models, patients treated with VEGFR-TKI versus mTORI therapy had lower hazard of TTD after IO treatment (aHR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.30-0.71; p < 0.01). One-year OS probability (65% vs 47%, p < 0.01) and proportion of ORR (29.8% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01) were significantly greater for patients treated with VEGFR-TKIs versus those treated with mTORIs.CONCLUSIONS: Targeted therapy has clinical activity following IO treatment. Patients who received VEGFR-TKIs versus mTORIs following IO therapy had improved clinical outcomes. These findings may help inform treatment guidelines and clinical practice for patients post-IO therapy.PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients may continue to experience clinical benefits from targeted therapies after progression on immuno-oncology treatment.

Active surveillance (AS) is a commonly used strategy in patients with slow-growing disease. We aimed to assess the outcomes and safety of AS in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).We used the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) to identify patients with mRCC diagnosed between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. The AS strategy was defined as (1) the start of systemic therapy ≥ 6 months after diagnosis of mRCC, or (2) never receiving systemic therapy for mRCC with an overall survival (OS) of ≥1 year. Patients starting systemic treatment6 months after diagnosis of mRCC were defined as receiving immediate systemic treatment. OS and time until first-line treatment failure (TTF) were compared between the two cohorts.A total of 853 patients met the criteria for AS (cohort A). Of these, 364 started treatment6 months after their initial diagnosis (cohort A1) and 489 never started systemic therapy (cohort A2); 827 patients received immediate systemic treatment (cohort B). The 5-year OS probability was significantly greater for cohort A than for cohort B (70% vs. 33.6%; P.0001). After adjusting for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk criteria and age, both OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.70; P.0001) and TTF (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85; P = .0002) were greater in cohort A1 compared with B. For cohort A1, the median time on AS was 14.2 months (range, 6-71).Based on the largest analysis of AS in mRCC to date, our data suggest that a subset of patients may be safely observed without immediate initiation of systemic therapy.

PURPOSE To investigate whether black race is an independent predictor of overall survival (OS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS We performed a retrospective 2-cohort (International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium [IMDC] and trial-database) study of patients with mRCC treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Unmatched (UM) and matched (M) analyses accounting for imbalances in region, year of treatment, age, and sex between races were performed. Cox models adjusting for histology, number of metastatic sites, nephrectomy, and IMDC risk compared time to treatment failure (TTF; IMDC cohort), progression-free survival (PFS; trial-database cohort), and OS. RESULTS The IMDC cohort included 73 black versus 3,381 (UM) and 1,236 (M) white patients. The trial-database cohort included 21 black versus 1,040 (UM) and 431 (M) white patients. Median OS for black versus white patients was 18.5 versus 25.8 months in the IMDC group and 21.0 versus 25.6 months in the trial-database group. Differences in OS were not significant in multivariable analysis in the IMDC group (hazard ratio [HR]M, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.5; HRUM, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.4) and trial-database (HRM, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.7; HRUM, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.6) cohorts. TTF for black patients was shorter in the UM IMDC cohort (HRUM, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8; P = .003), but not in the M analysis. PFS was shorter for black patients in both analyses in the trial-database cohort (HRM, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9; P = .002; HRUM, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9; P = .002). CONCLUSION Black patients had more IMDC risk factors and worse outcomes with TKIs versus white patients. Race was not an independent predictor of OS. Strategies to understand biologic determinants of outcomes for minority patients are needed to optimize care.

BACKGROUND: The present retrospective, longitudinal cohort study assessed the association between the first-line sunitinib treatment duration and clinical outcomes with second-line immuno-oncology (IO) therapy among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 161 patients with mRCC who had been treated with first-line sunitinib and subsequent IO therapy from select International mRCC Database Consortium centers were included. The overall survival, time to next therapy, time to treatment discontinuation, and real-world physician-assessed best response measured from IO therapy initiation were analyzed and compared between patients treated with first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months and those treated for < 6 months. RESULTS: The 116 patients treated with sunitinib for ≥ 6 months tended to be older and to have a better International mRCC Database Consortium risk than the 45 patients treated for < 6 months (favorable, 36% vs. 8%, P = .001; intermediate, 59% vs. 70%, P = .21; poor, 5% vs. 22%, P = .007). The receipt of sunitinib for ≥ 6 months versus < 6 months was associated with longer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.87; P = .02). No significant association was observed between the first-line sunitinib duration and second-line IO outcomes, including the time to next therapy (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.51; P = .66), time to treatment discontinuation (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.34; P = .49), and tumor response (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.22-2.49; P = .62). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant association between the first-line sunitinib duration and clinical outcomes with second-line IO therapy. Patients receiving first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months compared with < 6 months was associated with better overall survival, although potential unadjusted confounders could have been present. These findings support the paradigm that previous therapy will not dictate the effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy. ispartof: CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER vol:18 issue:4 pages:E350-E359 ispartof: location:United States status: published

BACKGROUND: The use of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) selectively for patients who show a favorable response to upfront systemic therapy may be an approach to select optimal candidates with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are most likely to benefit.OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize outcomes of deferred CN (dCN) after upfront sunitinib, outcomes relative to sunitinib alone, and outcomes of CN followed by sunitinib.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the prospectively maintained International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database to identify patients with newly diagnosed mRCC (2006-2018).INTERVENTION: Sunitinib alone, upfront CN followed by sunitinib, sunitinib followed by dCN.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were overall survival (OS) and time to sunitinib treatment failure (TTF). Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed; dCN was analyzed as a time-varying covariate to account for immortal time bias.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We evaluated 1541 patients, of whom 651 (42%) received sunitinib alone, 805 (52%) underwent CN followed by sunitinib, and 85 (5.5%) received sunitinib followed by dCN, at a median of 7.8 mo from diagnosis. Median OS periods for patients treated with sunitinib alone, CN followed by sunitinib, and sunitinib followed by dCN were 10, 19, and 46 mo, respectively, while the median TTF values were 4, 8, and 13 mo, respectively. In multivariable regression analyses, sunitinib followed by dCN was significantly associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.60, p CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received dCN were carefully selected and achieved long OS. With these benchmark outcomes, optimal selection criteria need to be identified and confirmation of the role of dCN in a clinical trial is warranted.PATIENT SUMMARY: We characterized benchmark survival outcomes for patients with metastatic kidney cancer treated with sunitinib alone, nephrectomy (kidney removal) followed by sunitinib, and sunitinib followed by nephrectomy. Patients who had their nephrectomy after an initial course of sunitinib had prolonged survival.

The most common type of cancer originating in the kidney is renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In both localized and advanced RCC, a number of clinical, pathologic, and molecular factors have been identified as having prognostic significance. In localized disease, risk stratification has traditionally involved the anatomic extent of disease, and several integrated scoring systems have been developed to help predict outcomes after definitive local therapy. In metastatic RCC, integrated prognostic models have also been established. These are used to stratify patients in contemporary clinical trials and to guide risk-directed treatment selection in clinical practice. Although many prognostic factors are common to both localized and advanced disease, there are some important distinctions. In both of these types of disease, the prognostic role of specific molecular and genomic alterations is an area of active investigation. In this review, we highlight the current staging systems and prognostic factors in localized and metastatic RCC. We also explore future directions in this area, including the expanding role of molecular biomarkers and their integration into the traditional prognostic models.

The treatment of renal cell carcinoma represents one of the great success stories in translational cancer research, with the development of novel therapies targeting key oncogenic pathways. These include drugs that target the VEGF and mTOR pathways, as well as novel immuno-oncology agents. Despite the therapeutic advancements, there is a paucity of well-validated prognostic and predictive biomarkers in advanced kidney cancer. With a number of highly effective therapies available across multiple lines, it will become increasingly important to develop a more tailored approach to treatment selection. Prognostic clinical models, such the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model, are routinely used for prognostication in clinical practice. The IMDC model has demonstrated a predictive capability in the context of these treatments including immune checkpoint inhibition. A number of promising molecular markers and gene expression signatures are being explored as prognostic and predictive biomarkers, but none are ready to be widely used for treatment selection. In this review, we will explore the current landscape of personalized care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This will include a focus on both prognostic and predictive factors as well as clinical applications of biology in kidney cancer.

Cabozantinib is approved for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, prognostic factors are still lacking in this context. The aim of this study was to evaluate prognostic factors in RCC patients treated with second- or third-line cabozantinib. A multicenter retrospective real-world study was conducted, involving 32 worldwide centers. A total of 237 patients with histologically confirmed clear-cell and non-clear-cell RCC who received cabozantinib as second- or third-line therapy for metastatic disease were included. We analyzed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-strategy failure (TTSF) using Kaplan&ndash, Meier curves. Cox proportional models were used at univariate and multivariate analyses.The median PFS and OS of cabozantinib were 7.76 months (95% CI 6.51&ndash, 10.88) and 11.57 months (95% CI 10.90&ndash, not reached (NR)) as second-line and 11.38 months (95% CI 5.79&ndash, NR) and NR (95% CI 11.51&ndash, NR) as third-line therapy. The median TTSF and OS were 11.57 and 15.52 months with the sequence of cabozantinib&ndash, nivolumab and 25.64 months and NR with nivolumab&ndash, cabozantinib, respectively. The difference between these two sequences was statistically significant only in good-risk patients. In the second-line setting, hemoglobin (Hb) levels (HR= 2.39, 95% CI 1.24&ndash, 4.60, p = 0.009) and IMDC (International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) group (HR = 1.72, 95% CI 1.04&ndash, 2.87, p = 0.037) were associated with PFS while ECOG-PS (HR = 2.33, 95%CI, 1.16&ndash, 4.69, p = 0.018) and Hb levels (HR = 3.12, 95%CI 1.18&ndash, 8.26, p = 0.023) correlated with OS at multivariate analysis, while in the third-line setting, only Hb levels (HR = 2.72, 95%CI 1.04&ndash, 7.09, p = 0.042) were associated with OS. Results are limited by the retrospective nature of the study.This real-world study provides evidence on the presence of prognostic factors in RCC patients receiving cabozantinib.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) may be beneficial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This has been studied predominantly in clear-cell RCC, with more limited data on the role of CN in patients with papillary histology.OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefit of CN in synchronous metastatic papillary RCC.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) database, a retrospective analysis was performed for patients with papillary mRCC treated with or without CN.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined for both patient groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to control for imbalances in individual IMDC risk factors.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 647 patients with papillary mRCC were identified, of whom 353 had synchronous metastatic disease. Of these, 109 patients were treated with CN and 244 were not. The median follow-up was 57.1mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.9-77.8) and the OS from the start of first-line targeted therapy for the entire cohort was 13.2mo (95% CI 12.0-16.1). Median OS for patients with CN was 16.3mo, compared to 8.6mo (pCONCLUSIONS: The use of CN in patients with mRCC and papillary histology appears to be associated with better survival compared to no CN after adjustment for risk criteria. Selection of appropriate candidates for CN is crucial. A clinical trial in this rare population may not be possible.PATIENT SUMMARY: In a population of patients with advanced papillary kidney cancer, we found that surgical removal of the primary kidney tumor was associated with better overall survival.

Advanced RCC has seen many treatment advances in the last several years, with the introduction of many novel therapies. Recent evidence from the KEYNOTE 426 and CheckMate 214 studies has mandated a rearrangement of treatment algorithms for advanced clear-cell RCC. We now await both clinical experience and prospective clinical trials to help inform the optimal sequence of therapy with these newer therapies, VEGF-targeted therapies and other evidence-based options. Ongoing participation in research and clinical trials to further our knowledge in this field continues to be an essential priority for healthcare professionals with an interest in advanced RCC. Therapy should be individualized based on patient profiles and disease characteristics, and each agent chosen should be optimized to obtain best results, with multidisciplinary care being paramount in achieving maximal benefit for patients.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), recent data have shown efficacy of first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi-nivo) as well as immuno-oncology (IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor combinations. Comparative data between these strategies are limited.OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of ipi-nivo versus IO-VEGF (IOVE) combinations in mRCC, and describe practice patterns and effectiveness of second-line therapies.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the International Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset, patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo.INTERVENTION: All patients received first-line IO combination therapies.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: First- and second-line response rates, time to treatment failure (TTF), time to next treatment (TNT), and overall survival (OS) were analysed. Hazard ratios were adjusted for IMDC risk factors.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 113 patients received IOVE combinations and 75 received ipi-nivo. For IOVE combinations versus ipi-nivo, first-line response rates were 33% versus 40% (between-group difference 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8% to 22%, p = 0.4), TTF was 14.3 versus 10.2 mo (p = 0.2), TNT was 19.7 versus 17.9 mo (p = 0.4), and median OS was immature but not statistically different (p = 0.17). Adjusted hazard ratios for TTF, TNT, and OS were 0.71 (95% CI 0.46-1.12, p = 0.14), 0.65 (95% CI 0.38-1.11, p = 0.11), and 1.74 (95% CI 0.82-3.68, p = 0.14), respectively. Sixty-four (34%) patients received second-line treatment. In patients receiving subsequent VEGF-based therapy, second-line response rates were lower in the IOVE cohort than in the ipi-nivo cohort (15% vs 45%; between-group difference 30%, 95% CI 3-57%, p = 0.04; n = 40), though second-line TTF was not significantly different (3.7 vs 5.4 mo; p = 0.4; n = 55). Limitations include the study's retrospective design and sample size.CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in first-line outcomes between IOVE combinations and ipi-nivo. Most patients received VEGF-based therapy in the second line. In this group, second-line response rate was greater in patients who received ipi-nivo initially.PATIENT SUMMARY: There were no significant differences in key first-line outcomes for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma receiving immuno-oncology/vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor combinations versus ipilimumab and nivolumab.

To review the evidence related to cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated in the targeted therapy era, with a focus on observational studies and randomized trials.A number of retrospective observational studies exploring the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy have been reported. These have suggested an association between cytoreductive nephrectomy and survival, with hazard ratio estimates ranging from 0.39 to 0.68 in favour of cytoreductive nephrectomy. In contrast, the CARMENA randomized trial demonstrated that sunitinib alone was noninferior to cytoreductive nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in intermediate-risk and poor-risk patients. The results of the SURTIME trial suggest that initial sunitinib followed by a deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy may also be a reasonable approach in select patients.On the basis of the evidence to date, there is still a role for cytoreductive nephrectomy in the multimodality treatment of mRCC. Careful patient selection is of paramount importance and discussion in multidisciplinary tumour boards is encouraged. As the treatment landscape of mRCC continues to change, the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the modern immuno-oncology era will need to be explored.

Background Data on the comparative efficacy of fulvestrant and other endocrine treatments are inconsistent. Clinical markers predictive of greater benefit from fulvestrant compared to the alternate endocrine agents have not been identified. Methods We searched the literature from inception to May 2015, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and major conference proceedings. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fulvestrant containing arm to either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitors (AI) and presented results for subgroup analyses as Hazard Ratios (HR) for Time to Progression (TTP) or Progression Free Survival (PFS). Subgroup analyses reported in at least two RCTs were included. Data were then weighted using generic inverse variance approach and pooled in meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. Difference between sub-groups was tested with chi 2 statistics. Results Analysis included 4 RCTs comparing fulvestrant-based therapy to AI alone and comprising 2382 patients (1190 on fulvestrant and 1192 on control arms). TTP/PFS was the primary endpoint in all included studies. Four sub-groups fulfilled our criteria. Fulvestrant was associated with greater benefit in patients with visceral metastasis (HR 0.85 vs 1.02 for no visceral disease, p for difference = 0.05) and in those patients with a time to recurrence >5 years (HR 0.80 vs 1.09 for recurrence ⩽5 years, p for difference = 0.02). There was no apparent difference in benefit based on age >65 years (HR 0.86 vs 0.96, p for difference = 0.32) or HER2/neu status (HR 0.36 vs 0.92, p for difference = 0.09). Conclusion Patients with advanced breast cancer with visceral involvement and longer time from diagnosis to recurrence had significantly better TTP/PFS with the use of fulvestrant. These results may have implications for selection of patients in the design of future clinical trials and to inform treatment decisions in clinical practice.

Aquaculture, and in particular Atlantic salmon culture, is expected to deliver n − 3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid (n − 3 LC-PUFA) rich products. Nevertheless, the availability of n − 3 LC-PUFA rich raw materials for aquafeed is dwindling, and at an ever increasing market price. Thus, there is the need to better understand the in vivo n − 3 LC-PUFA biosynthetic capabilities of cultured fish to enable the possible maximization of dietary 18:3n − 3 (ALA) bioconversion to 20:5n − 3 (EPA) and 22:6n − 3 (DHA). The cofactors and coenzymes involved in this metabolic pathway have so far received limited research attention. In this study, juvenile Atlantic salmon were fed an ALA-rich diet with no, normal, or over-fortified inclusion of those micronutrients reported to be essential cofactors (iron; zinc; magnesium) and coenzymes (riboflavin; biotin; niacin) for the fatty acid elongase and desaturase enzymes. The results showed that reduced dietary inclusion of these micronutrients impaired the normal n − 3 LC-PUFA biosynthetic capabilities of fish, whereas the over fortification did not provide any additional benefit. This study provides new knowledge on micronutrients and lipid metabolism interactions in a commercially important cultured species, and is envisaged to be a useful contribution towards developing more sustainable and commercially viable aquafeed for the future. Statement of relevance This work is the continuation and extension of a previous study (Lewis et al., 2013, Aquaculture 412/413, 215–222) in which we explored the physiological roles and potential effects of micronutrients on fatty acid metabolism in cultured fish. The present study differed from the previous in the blend of minerals and vitamins used, the species, the fatty acid composition of the test diet, and the inclusion also of a negative control. The results are most interesting, showing that riboflavin (B 2 ), biotin (B 7 ), and niacin (B 3 ), Iron (Fe), Magnesium (Mg) and Zinc (Zn) are all required for proper fatty acid bioconversion, but also that a dietary over-fortification does not translate into proportional improved bioconversion.

Baseline symptom burden as measured using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (esas), a patient-reported, validated, and reliable tool measuring symptom severity in 9 separate domains, might yield prognostic information in patients receiving treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) and might add to the existing prognostic models. In this retrospective single-centre cohort study, we included patients receiving first-line sunitinib therapy for mrcc between 2008 and 2012. Baseline variables included information relevant to the pre-existing prognostic models and pre-treatment esas summation scores (added together across all 9 domains), with higher scores representing greater symptom burden. We used Kaplan&ndash, Meier curves and Cox regression modelling to determine if symptom burden can provide prognostic information with respect to overall survival. We identified 68 patients receiving first-line therapy for mrcc. Most had intermediate- or poor-risk disease based on both the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (mskcc) and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (imdc) models. The median baseline esas summation score was 16 (range: 6&ndash, 57). In univariable analysis, the hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.270 (p = 0.0047) per 10-unit increase in summation esas. In multivariable analysis, the hazard ratio was 1.208 (p = 0.0362) when controlling for mskcc risk group and 1.240 (p = 0.019) when controlling for imdc risk group. Baseline symptom burden as measured by esas score appears to provide prognostic information for survival in patients with mrcc. Those results should encourage the investigation of patient-reported symptom scales as potential prognostic indicators for patients with advanced cancer.

Real-world evidence has played an important role in expanding our knowledge on the treatment and prognostication of advanced renal cell carcinoma. This type of data has been particularly helpful in providing a better understanding of groups that are traditionally excluded from randomized controlled trials. The International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) represents the largest collection of real-world data on patients with advanced kidney cancer treated with targeted therapies. The IMDC prognostic model has been used to stratify patients in contemporary clinical trials and to provide risk-directed treatment selection in everyday clinical practice. More recently, it has been shown to predict response to first-line combination immunotherapy in the phase III CheckMate 214 clinical trial. In this review, we highlight the real-world evidence associated with the treatment of mRCC. We focus on first-line therapy, as well as second-line and third-line therapeutic options, including novel immuno-oncology agents. We also address the real-world evidence for the use of cytoreductive nephrectomy in advanced renal cell carcinoma in the targeted therapy era.

Several drugs have demonstrated clinical activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The identification of key metabolic pathways has led to the development of novel targeted therapies which have drastically changed the treatment paradigm of mRCC. Moreover, immune-checkpoint inhibitors have recently shown significant activity in advanced disease. Despite these advancements, the role of adjuvant therapy in localized, non-metastatic RCC remains unclear. The utility of many of these agents in the adjuvant setting is currently being actively explored. In this review, we will summarize the main clinical trials investigating adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma, focusing primarily on immunotherapy and targeted agents.

610 Background: Prognostic factors such as the IMDC criteria have included all types of targeted therapy. This study assesses clinical outcomes and provide benchmarks for mRCC pts treated specifically with 1L SUN in the real world to provide contemporary benchmarks for outcomes and survival. Methods: Clear cell mRCC pts initiating SUN as 1L therapy between 2010-2018 were included in a retrospective database study. Kaplan Meier analysis was used to estimate median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS: time to death) by IMDC risk groups based on Karnofsky Performance Status < 80%, diagnosis to treatment interval < 1 year, anemia, neutrophilia, hypercalcemia and thrombocytosis. Results: Among 1,769 1L SUN pts with clear cell in the RW clinical database, 318 (18%) had favorable, 1,031 (58%) had intermediate and 420 (24%) had poor IMDC risk. Across the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, pts had similar mean age in years, gender distribution, and year of SUN initiation (age: 63.8, 62.9 and 62.6; male: 74%, 75%, and 72%; SUN initiation year of 2010-2013: all 71%). In the favorable risk group, 99% received nephrectomy vs 88% in intermediate and 66% in poor risk group. Median TTD was 15.0, 8.5, and 4.2 months (mos) in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and was 7.1 mos in the combined intermediate/poor risk groups. Median OS was 52.1, 31.5, and 9.8 mos in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and was 23.2 mos in the combined intermediate/poor risk groups. Conclusions: This real world study based on a contemporary cohort of 1L SUN mRCC pts found a median OS of 52 mos which sets a new benchmark for clear cell mRCC in the favorable risk group. OS in the intermediate and poor risk groups are similar to previous reports. This affects pt counselling and clinical trial design.

584 Background: In mRCC, ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi-nivo) is a 1L treatment option. Recent data have also shown efficacy of 1L PD(L)1-VEGF (PV) inhibitor combinations. The efficacy of these two strategies has not been compared. Methods: Using the IMDC dataset, patients (pts) treated with any 1L PV combination were compared to those treated with ipi-nivo. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to control for imbalances in IMDC risk factors. Results: 164 pts received 1L IO combination therapy: 104 treated with PV combinations and 60 with ipi-nivo. Baseline characteristics and IMDC risk factors were comparable between groups (Table). When comparing PV combinations vs ipi-nivo, 1L response rates (RR) were 30% vs 39% (p = 0.29), time to treatment failure (TTF) was 13.2 (95% CI 8.3-16.1) vs 8.5 months (95% CI 5.7-14.0, p = 0.31), and median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR) (95% CI 19.7-NR) vs NR (95% CI 27.6-NR, p = 0.39). When adjusted for IMDC risk factors, the hazard ratio (HR) for TTF was 0.77 (95% CI 0.44-1.35, p = 0.36) and the HR for death was 0.94 (95% CI 0.33-2.71, p = 0.91). Similar results were seen when restricting the cohort to IMDC intermediate/poor risk pts only. In pts receiving subsequent VEGF TKI monotherapy, second-line (2L) RR (13% vs 45%, p = 0.07) and TTF (5.5 vs 5.4 months, p = 0.80) for PV combinations (n = 15) vs ipi-nivo (n = 20) were not significantly different. Conclusions: There does not appear to be a superior 1L IO combination strategy in mRCC, as PV combinations and ipi-nivo have comparable RR, TTF and OS. Although there is a trend towards differences in RR, there does not appear to be a significant difference in TTF for patients receiving 2L VEGF TKI therapy. [Table: see text]

Objective Iron supplementation in iron-deficiency anaemia is standard practice, but the benefits of iron supplementation in iron-deficient non-anaemic (IDNA) individuals remains controversial. Our objective is to identify the effects of iron therapy on fatigue and physical capacity in IDNA adults. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Setting Primary care. Participants Adults (≥18 years) who were iron deficient but non-anaemic. Interventions Oral, intramuscular or intravenous iron supplementation; all therapy doses, frequencies and durations were included. Comparators Placebo or active therapy. Results We identified RCTs in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, SportDiscus and CAB Abstracts from inception to 31 October 2016. We searched the WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for relevant ongoing trials and performed forward searches of included trials and relevant reviews in Web of Science. We assessed internal validity of included trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the external validity using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. From 11 580 citations, we included 18 unique trials and 2 companion papers enrolling 1170 patients. Using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model, iron supplementation was associated with reduced self-reported fatigue (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.38; 95% CI −0.52 to −0.23; I 2 0%; 4 trials; 714 participants) but was not associated with differences in objective measures of physical capacity, including maximal oxygen consumption (SMD 0.11; 95% CI −0.15 to 0.37; I 2 0%; 9 trials; 235 participants) and timed methods of exercise testing. Iron supplementation significantly increased serum haemoglobin concentration (MD 4.01 g/L; 95% CI 1.22 to 6.81; I 2 48%; 12 trials; 298 participants) and serum ferritin (MD 9.23 µmol/L; 95% CI 6.48 to 11.97; I 2 58%; 14 trials; 616 participants). Conclusion In IDNA adults, iron supplementation is associated with reduced subjective measures of fatigue but not with objective improvements in physical capacity. Given the global prevalence of both iron deficiency and fatigue, patients and practitioners could consider consumption of iron-rich foods or iron supplementation to improve symptoms of fatigue in the absence of documented anaemia. PROSPERO registration number CRD42014007085.

615 Background: The immuno-oncology (IO) checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) cabozantinib have both been shown in phase III clinical trials to be effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after progression on first-line therapy. We sought to explore the real-world efficacy of these therapies in second-line mRCC. Methods: Using the IMDC database, a retrospective analysis was performed on mRCC patients treated with second-line nivolumab or cabozantinib. Baseline characteristics and IMDC risk factors were collected. Overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), and response rates were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences. Results: 225 patients were treated with nivolumab and 53 with cabozantinib. There was no significant difference in OS identified, with a mOS for nivolumab of 22.1 months (95% CI 17.18 – NR) and 23.7 months (95% CI 15.52 vs. NR) for cabozantinib, p = 0.6053. The TTF was also similar, with 6.90 months (95% CI 4.60 – 9.20) for nivolumab versus 7.39 months (95% CI 5.52 – 12.85) for cabozantinib, p = 0.1983. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for nivolumab vs. cabozantinib was 1.297 (95% CI – 0.728 – 2.312), p = 0.3775. Conclusions: Nivolumab and cabozantinib appear to have similar efficacy in terms of OS and TTF in this real-world patient population, thus both novel agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line therapy. [Table: see text]