Search

Background: Therapeutic advancements based on immuno-oncology combinations have revolutionized the management of patients with renal cell carcinoma. However, patients who have progressive disease as the best response, "primary refractory" (P ref ), face dismal outcomes., Objective: Our multicenter retrospective real-world study aims to assess the prevalence and clinicopathological characteristics of P ref patients., Methods: This study collected data from 72 centers across 22 countries (1709 patients), involving patients aged ≥18 years with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. All patients were treated with first-line immune-oncology combinations. Data included patient demographics, histology, metastatic sites, and treatment responses. Radiological assessments followed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Statistical analyses employed Kaplan-Meier method, Cox proportional hazard models, logistic regression, and the receiver operating characteristic curve., Results: In our study, the P ref rate was 19%. Nivolumab/ipilimumab showed the highest P ref rate (27%), while pembrolizumab/lenvatinib exhibited the lowest (10%). Primary refactory patients demonstrated significantly lower median overall survival (7.6 months) compared with non-P ref patients (55.7 months), p < 0.001. At the multivariate analysis, nephrectomy, sarcomatoid de-differentiation, intermediate/poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk, and bone and brain metastases emerged as significant predictors of overall survival for P ref patients with renal cell carcinoma. Logistic regression showed a significant relationship between liver metastases, intermediate/poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk, and no surgery and an increased risk of P ref . This study presents limitations, mainly because of its retrospective design., Conclusions: The ARON-1 study provides valuable insights into P ref patients, emphasizing the challenges of this precociously resistant subgroup. Identified predictors could guide risk stratification, aiding clinicians in tailored therapeutic approaches., Competing Interests: Declarations Funding No external funding was used in the preparation of this article. Conflicts of Interest/Compting Interests Ondrej Fiala received honoraria from Novartis, Janssen, Merck, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer for consultations and lectures unrelated to this project. Sebastiano Buti has received honoraria for speaking at scientific events and advisory roles from Astra Zeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Merck, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer and research funding from Novartis and Pfizer unrelated to this project. He has also been on the advisory board for Gentili. Francesco Massari has received research support and/or honoraria from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Enrique Grande has received honoraria for speaker engagements and advisory roles or received funding for continuous medical education from Adacap, Amgen, Angelini, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caris Life Sciences, Celgene, Clovis-Oncology, Eisai, Eusa Pharma, Genetracer, Guardant Health, HRA-Pharma, Ipsen, ITM-Radiopharma, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nanostring Technologies, Natera, Novartis, ONCODNA (Biosequence), Palex, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Servier, Taiho, and Thermo Fisher Scientific and research grants from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. All of the above are unrelated to the present paper. Alexandr Poprach has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, Ipsen, Roche, Astellas, Merck, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, unrelated to this project. Javier Molina-Cerrillo declares consultant, advisory, or speaker roles for Ipsen, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Janssen, and BMS unrelated to this project. Zin W. Myint has received research support from Merck unrelated to the present paper. Ray Manneh Kopp has received research support and/or honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Tecnofarma and Roche, unrelated to this project. Jakub Kucharz has received honoraria from Angelini, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, and research funding from Novartis, all unrelated to the present paper. Fernando Sabino M. Monteiro has received research support from Janssen and Merck Sharp Dome and honoraria from Janssen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp Dome, all unrelated to the present paper. Ravindran Kanesvaran has received fees for speaker bureau and advisory board activities from the following companies; Pfizer, MSD, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Amgen, Astellas, and Bayer, unrelated to this project. Tomáš Büchler has received research support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Merck KGaA, MSD, 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, AstraZeneca, Roche, Servier, Accord, MSD, and Pfizer, all unrelated to the present paper. Andrey Soares has received honoraria from Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Ipsen, Adium. Consulting or Advisory Role from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adium, Ipsen, and Pfizer, research Funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Astellas (Inst), and AstraZeneca (Inst), travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Janssen, Ipsen, Adium, MSD, and Merck Serono, and ownership in BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology. All are unrelated to this study. Camillo Porta has received honoraria from Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Ipsen, Merck Serono, and MSD and acted as a Protocol Steering Committee Member for Eisai and MSD, unrelated to this project. Matteo Santoni has received research support and honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, MSD, Astellas, A.A.A. and Bayer, all unrelated to the present paper. Daniele Santini, Haoran Li, Giandomenico Roviello, Se Hoon Park, Umberto Basso, Martina Catalano, Emmanuel Seront, Jawaher Ansari, Marwan Ghosn, Fabio Calabrò, Dipen Bhuva, Maria T. Bourlon, Michela Roberto, Mattia Alberto Di Civita, Veronica Mollica, Andrea Marchetti, Nicola Battelli, Marco Ricci, and Aristotelis Bamias have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article. Tomas Buchler and Camillo Porta are Editorial Board members of Targeted Oncology. Tomas Buchler and Camillo Porta were not involved in the selection of peer reviewers for the manuscript nor any of the subsequent editorial decisions. Ethics Approval The “ARON-1” project obtained approved from the Ethics Committee of the Marche Region (2021-492) and adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Consent for Publication Not applicable. Availability of Data and Material The datasets generated during and/or analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Code Availability Not applicable. Authors’ Contributions Conception and design: DS, MS, FM; acquisition of data: DS, MS, FM; analysis and interpretation of data: DS, MS, FM; drafting of the manuscript: DS, MS, FM; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors; statistical analysis: MS; supervision: MS, FM., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background and Objective: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the most frequent histological subtype of non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC). Owing to the heterogeneity of nccRCC, patients are often excluded from large phase 3 trials focused on clear cell RCC, so treatment options for nccRCC remain limited. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy of first-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or immuno-oncology (IO)-based combinations in patients with pRCC., Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of real-world data collected for patients with advanced pRCC treated in 40 centers in 12 countries as part of the ARON-1 project (NCT05287464). The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), the overall response rate (ORR), and time to second progression (PFS2). OS, PFS, and PFS2 were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and results were compared between the treatment groups using a log-rank test. Univariate and multivariable analyses were carried out using Cox proportional-hazard models., Key Findings and Limitations: We included 200 patients with metastatic pRCC, of whom 73 were treated with IO-based combinations and 127 with TKIs. Median OS was 22.5 mo in the TKI group 28.8 mo in the IO group (p = 0.081). Median PFS was 6.4 mo in the TKI group and 17.4 mo in the IO group (p < 0.001). The ORR was higher in the IO group than in the TKI group (41% vs 27%; p = 0.037)., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Our results show that IO-based combinations have superior efficacy outcomes to TKIs for first-line treatment of metastatic pRCC., Patient Summary: The ARON-1 project collects clinical data for patients with kidney cancer treated in multiple centers worldwide to assess outcomes in the real-world setting. We analyzed data for patients with metastatic kidney cancer of a specific subtype to evaluate the efficacy of different first-line treatments. Patients treated with immune-based combinations had better outcomes than patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: About 20% of patients with renal cell carcinoma present with non-clear cell histology (nccRCC), encompassing various histological types. While surgery remains pivotal for localized-stage nccRCC, the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in metastatic nccRCC is contentious. Limited data exist on the role of CN in metastatic nccRCC under current standard of care., Objective: This retrospective study focused on the impact of upfront CN on metastatic nccRCC outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (IO) combinations or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy., Methods: The study included 221 patients with nccRCC and synchronous metastatic disease, treated with IO combinations or TKI monotherapy in the first line. Baseline clinical characteristics, systemic therapy, and treatment outcomes were analyzed. The primary objective was to assess clinical outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Statistical analysis involved the Fisher exact test, Pearson's correlation coefficient, analysis of variance, Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and univariate/multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models., Results: Median OS for patients undergoing upfront CN was 36.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.9-71.3) versus 20.8 (95% CI 12.6-24.8) months for those without CN (p = 0.005). Upfront CN was significantly associated with OS in the multivariate Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio 0.47 [95% CI 0.31-0.72], p < 0.001). In patients without CN, the median OS and PFS was 24.5 (95% CI 18.1-40.5) and 13.0 months (95% CI 6.6-23.5) for patients treated with IO+TKI versus 7.5 (95% CI 4.3-22.4) and 4.9 months (95% CI 3.0-8.1) for those receiving the IO+IO combination (p = 0.059 and p = 0.032, respectively)., Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the survival benefits of upfront CN compared with systemic therapy without CN. The study suggests that the use of IO+TKI combination or, eventually, TKI monotherapy might be a better choice than IO+IO combination for patients who are not candidates for CN regardless of IO eligibility. Prospective trials are needed to validate these findings and refine the role of CN in current mRCC management., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: There is an ongoing debate as to whether sex could be associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) benefit. Existing literature data reveal contradictory results, and data on first-line immune combinations are lacking., Method: This was a real-world, multicenter, international, observational study to determine the sex effects on the clinical outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with immuno-oncology combinations as first-line therapy., Results: A total of 1827 mRCC patients from 71 cancer centers in 21 countries were included. The median OS was 38.7 months (95% CI 32.7-44.2) in the overall study population: 40.0 months (95% CI 32.7-51.6) in males and 38.7 months (95% CI 26.4-41.0) in females (p = 0.202). The median OS was higher in males vs. females in patients aged 18-49y (36.9 months, 95% CI 29.0-51.6, vs. 24.8 months, 95% CI 16.8-40.4, p = 0.426, with + 19% of 2y-OS rate, 72% vs. 53%, p = 0.006), in the clear cell histology subgroup (44.2 months, 95% CI 35.8-55.7, vs. 38.7 months, 95% CI 26.0-41.0, p = 0.047), and in patients with sarcomatoid differentiation (34.4 months, 95% CI 26.4-59.0, vs. 15.3 months, 95% CI 8.9-41.0, p < 0.001). Sex female was an independent negative prognostic factor in the sarcomatoid population (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.15 - 2.57, p = 0.008)., Conclusions: Although the female's innate and adaptive immunity has been observed to be more active than the male's, women in the subgroup of clear cell histology, sarcomatoid differentiation, and those under 50 years of age showed shorter OS than males., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Systemic treatment with immune combinations is the gold standard for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) worldwide. The systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) is a prognostic marker for several types of malignant neoplasms, including mRCC, in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. Data regarding the prognostic value of the SII in patients with mRCC treated with immunotherapy are scarce and controversial.  METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data of patients with mRCC from 56 centers in 18 countries. SII (Platelet × Neutrophil/Lymphocyte count) was calculated prior to the first systemic treatment and cut-off was defined by a survival receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The primary objective of our retrospective study was to assess the outcomes of patients treated with first-line immunotherapy.  RESULTS: Data from 1034 mRCC patients was collected and included in this analysis. The SII cut-off value was 1265. After a follow-up of 26.7 months, and the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 39.8 and 15.7 months, respectively. According to SII (low vs. high), patients with low-SII had longer OS (55.7 vs. 22.2 months, P < .001), better PFS (20.8 vs. 8.5 months, P < .001), and higher overall response rate (52 vs. 37%, P = .033)., Conclusion: A high SII is associated with poor oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC. SII could be an easily accessible prognostic indicator for use in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Disclosure Fernando Sabino M. Monteiro: Research support was provided by Janssen (Merck Sharp Dome). Honoraria from Janssen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp Dome. Ownership: BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology; Ondrej Fiala: Received honoraria from Roche, Janssen, MSD, Pierre Fabre, GSK, and Pfizer for consultations and lectures unrelated to this project; Francesco Massari: Personal fees from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, and Pfizer; Jindrich Kopecky: Consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Novartis, MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Merck, and Novartis; Jakub Kuchartz: Honoraria: Angelini, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Research Funding: Novartis; Enrique Grande: Honoraria: Adacap, AMGEN, Angelini, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caris Life Sciences, Celgene, Clovis-Oncology, Eisai, Eusa Pharma, Genetracer, Guardant Health, HRA-Pharma, IPSEN, ITM-Radiopharma, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, ONCODNA (Biosequence), Palex, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Servier, Taiho, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. Funding: Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals; Maria T. Bourlon: Honoraria/advisory board: Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. Funding: Pfizer; Javier Molina-Cerrillo: Consultant, advisory, or speaker roles for IPSEN, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Janssen, Eisai, MSD, and BMS. JMC has received research grants from Pfizer, IPSEN, Janssen, and Roche; Tomas Buchler: Research support: AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Merck KGaA, MSD, 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, AstraZeneca, Roche, Servier, Accord, MSD, and Pfizer; Emmanuel Seront: Consultancy: MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Ipsen; Aristotelis Bamias: Honoraria, Advisory, Research support: Pfizer, Roche, MSD, BMS, and Ipsen; Camillo Porta: Honoraria: Angelini Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD; Andre Poisl Fay: Honoraria: Pfizer, Astellas, BMS, Novartis, Roche, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, MSD, Ipsen. Scientific Advisory Board: Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD. Research Grant: CAPES - CNPq, BMS, Roche, Astra-Zeneca, MSD, Foundation Medicine, Ipsen. Ownership: BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology. All other authors do not have relationships to disclose. All authors except Ondrej Fiala are unrelated to this study., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: More than 430,000 new cases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were reported in 2020. Clear cell RCC, which occurs in 80% of cases, is often associated with mutations in the VHL gene, leading to dysregulation of hypoxia-induced transcription factors pathways and carcinogenesis. The purpose of this study is to examine the adverse events (AEs) of cabozantinib treatment and the relationship between individual patient factors and the frequency of their occurrence in detail. Materials and Methods: Seventy-one patients with metastatic RCC were treated with second or further lines of cabozantinib at the Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology. Comprehensive data, including demographics, clinicopathological factors, and AEs, were collected from January 2017 to June 2021. This study evaluated the impact of various patient-related factors on the rate of adverse events and treatment tolerance using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Cabozantinib-induced AEs were significantly associated with body mass index (BMI), body surface area (BSA), IMDC prognostic score, and treatment line. Notably, patients receiving cabozantinib post-tyrosine kinase inhibitors reported fewer AEs. Dose reduction was unrelated to adverse event frequency, but patients requiring dose reduction were characterized with lower body mass and BSA but not BMI. Conclusions: The factors described make it possible to predict the incidence of AEs, which allows for faster detection and easier management, especially in the high-risk group. AEs should be reported in detail in real-world studies, as their occurrence has a significant impact on prognosis.

Background: Renal c carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most common urinary cancers worldwide, with a predicted increase in incidence in the coming years. Immunotherapy, as a single agent, in doublets, or in combination with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), has rapidly become a cornerstone of the RCC therapeutic scenario, but no head-to-head comparisons have been made. In this setting, real-world evidence emerges as a cornerstone to guide clinical decisions., Objective: The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the outcome of patients treated with first-line immune combinations or immune oncology (IO)-TKIs for advanced RCC., Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from 930 patients, 654 intermediate risk and 276 poor risk, were collected retrospectively from 58 centers in 20 countries. Special data such as sarcomatoid differentiation, body mass index, prior nephrectomy, and metastatic localization, in addition to biochemical data such as hemoglobin, platelets, calcium, lactate dehydrogenase, neutrophils, and radiological response by investigator's criteria, were collected., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The median follow-up was calculated by the inverse Kaplan-Meier method., Results and Limitations: The median follow-up time was 18.7 mo. In the 654 intermediate-risk patients, the median OS and PFS were significantly longer in patients with the intermediate than in those with the poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria (38.9 vs 17.3 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] p < 0.001, and 17.3 vs 11.6 mo, 95% CI p < 0.001, respectively). In the intermediate-risk subgroup, the OS was 55.7 mo (95% CI 31.4-55.7) and 40.2 mo (95% CI 29.6-51.6) in patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p = 0.047). PFS was 30.7 mo (95% CI 16.5-55.7) and 13.2 mo (95% CI 29.6-51.6) in intermediate-risk patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p < 0.001). In the poor-risk subgroup, the median OS and PFS did not show a statistically significant difference between IO + IO and IO + TKI. Our study presents several limitations, mainly due to its retrospective nature., Conclusions: Our results showed differences between the IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations in intermediate-risk patients. A clear association with longer PFS and OS in favor of patients who received the IO + TKI combinations compared with the IO-IO combination was observed. Instead, in the poor-risk group, we observed no significant difference in PFS or OS between patients who received different combinations., Patient Summary: Renal cancer is one of the most frequent genitourinary tumors. Treatment is currently based on immunotherapy combinations or immunotherapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but there are no comparisons between these.In this study, we have analyzed the clinical course of 930 patients from 58 centers in 20 countries around the world. We aimed to analyze the differences between the two main treatment strategies, combination of two immunotherapies versus immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy, and found in real-life data that intermediate-risk patients (approximately 60% of patients with metastatic renal cancer) seem to benefit more from the combination of immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy than from double immunotherapy. No such differences were found in poor-risk patients. This may have important implications in daily practice decision-making for these patients., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Obesity has been associated with improved response to immunotherapy in cancer patients. We investigated the role of body mass index (BMI) in patients from the ARON-1 study (NCT05287464) treated by dual immuno-oncology agents (IO+IO) or a combination of immuno-oncology drug and a tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Patients and Methods: Medical records of patients with documented mRCC treated by immuno-oncology combinations were reviewed at 47 institutions from 16 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (OS), and overall clinical benefit (OCB), defined as the sum of the rate of partial/complete responses and stable disease. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to explore the association of variables of interest with survival., Results: A total of 675 patients were included; BMI was >25 kg/m 2 in 345 patients (51%) and was associated with improved OS (55.7 vs. 28.4 months, P < .001). The OCB of patients with BMI >25 kg/m 2 versus those with BMI ≤25 kg/m 2 was significantly higher only in patients with nonclear cell histology (81% vs. 65%, P = .011), and patients with liver metastases (76% vs. 58%, P = .007), Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio >4 (77% vs 62%, P = .022) or treated by nivolumab plus ipilimumab (77% vs. 64%, P = .044). In the BMI ≤25 kg/m 2 subgroup, significant differences were found between patients with NLR >4 versus ≤4 (62% vs. 82%, P = .002) and patients treated by IO+IO versus IO+TKIs combinations (64% vs. 83%, P = .002)., Conclusion: Our study suggests that the prognostic significance and the association of BMI with treatment outcome varies across clinico-pathological mRCC subgroups., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The upfront treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been revolutionized by the introduction of immune-based combinations. The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in these patients is still debated. The ARON-1 study (NCT05287464) was designed to globally analyze real-world data of mRCC patients receiving first-line immuno-oncology combinations. This sub-analysis is focused on the role of upfront or delayed partial or radical CN in three geographical areas (Western Europe, Eastern Europe, America/Asia)., Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study in mRCC patients treated with first-line immune combinations from 55 centers in 19 countries. From 1152 patients in the ARON-1 dataset, we selected 651 patients with de novo mRCC. 255 patients (39%) had undergone CN, partial in 14% and radical in 86% of cases; 396 patients (61%) received first-line immune-combinations without previous nephrectomy., Results: Median overall survival (OS) from the diagnosis of de novo mRCC was 41.6 months and not reached (NR) in the CN subgroup and 24.0 months in the no CN subgroup, respectively (P<0.001). Median OS from the start of first-line therapy was NR in patients who underwent CN and 22.4 months in the no CN subgroup (P<0.001). Patients who underwent CN reported longer OS compared to no CN in all the three geographical areas., Conclusions: No significant differences in terms of patients' outcome seem to clearly emerge, even if the rate CN and the choice of the type of first-line immune-based combination varies across the different Cancer Centers participating in the ARON-1 project.

Background: Immuno-oncology combinations have achieved survival benefits in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Objective: The ARON-1 study (NCT05287464) was designed to globally collect real-world data on the use of immuno-combinations as first-line therapy for mRCC patients., Patients and Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a cytologically and/or histologically confirmed diagnosis of mRCC treated with first-line immuno-combination therapies were retrospectively included from 47 International Institutions from 16 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall clinical benefit (OCB)., Results: A total of 729 patients were included; tumor histology was clear-cell RCC in 86% of cases; 313 patients received dual immuno-oncology (IO + IO) therapy while 416 were treated with IO-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO + TKI) combinations. In the overall study population, the median OS and PFS were 36.5 and 15.0 months, respectively. The median OS was longer with IO+TKI compared with IO+IO therapy in the 616 patients with intermediate/poor International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk criteria (55.7 vs 29.7 months; p = 0.045). OCB was 84% for IO+TKI and 72% for IO + IO combination (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our study may suggest that immuno-oncology combinations are effective as first-line therapy in the mRCC real-world context, showing outcome differences between IO + IO and IO + TKI combinations in mRCC subpopulations., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05287464., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Clinical practice shows significant differences in treatment outcomes across patients treated with cabozantinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). It is not known whether cabozantinib-induced adverse events are predictive factors of survival as in case of drugs such as sunitinib or axitinib. The study participants were 30 adult patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib as a second- or further line setting. All adverse events were evaluated using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Progression-free survival (PFS) values were calculated by taking the beginning of cabozantinib treatment as the start date and either disease progression or death as the end date. PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared using the log-rank test. We identified independent PFS predictors using multiple Cox proportional hazards models and reported hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals. The median observation time cabozantinib treatment was 7.5 months, with a range of 2-15 months. During that time, 11 (37%) of the patients had mRCC progression. Median PFS on cabozantinib was not reached, and lower quartile was 6 months. All patients developed at least one adverse event in the course of cabozantinib therapy. Hypertension, hypothyroidism and HFS were observed most frequently, in about two-thirds of the patients. The co-incidence of multiple adverse events was common. Hypertension, hypothyroidism, diarrhea and liver toxicity were significantly associated with longer PFS values. Patients with three or more side effects had significantly longer PFS than those with two or fewer. Even though this study was conducted in a small patient sample and the observation time was relatively short our results confirm the predictive value of the incidence of adverse events during cabozantinib treatment in mRCC patients. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of this kind conducted in this group of patients.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents 2-3% of all malignancies. Most RCC-related deaths are caused by metastases of the disease. Studies suggest that inflammation-related parameters are of prognostic significance in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Neutrophilia and thrombocytosis are markers of systemic inflammation that accompanies cancer, while lymphopenia is related to dysfunctions of the immune system. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) thus seem particularly interesting from a clinical perspective. The goal of this study was to determine if the response to therapy, consisting of reductions in radiologically assessed tumor burden and in inflammation-related parameters after 12 weeks of treatment with sunitinib, has a predictive value for outcome. One hundred thirty-one mRCC patients treated with the first-line sunitinib were evaluated. Inflammation-related parameters and radiologic response were correlated with treatment outcomes, progression-free, and overall survival. We found that the longest median progression-free survival of 37 months (Q1; Q3-15; not reached) and overall survival of 40 months (Q1; Q3-26; not reached) were achieved by patients who had either partial or complete response according to RECIST 1.1 and NLR lower than 1.64. In conclusion, the study confirmed that both objective response and lower grade of inflammation during treatment are predictive of better outcomes in mRCC patients treated with sunitinib.

Patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) typically receive systemic treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Side effects include the hand-foot syndrome (HFS), tiredness, nausea, decreased appetite, diarrhea, myelosuppression, and hypertension. This study seeks to define the relationship between the incidence of HFS after the first cycle of treatment with sunitinib as the first-line treatment for mRCC (50 mg/day, 6-week schedule: 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off) and progression-free survival. We found that patients, treated with sunitinib for mRCC, who did not experience HFS had the median progression-free survival of 9.8 months. HFS symptoms appeared in 20% of patients after the first treatment cycle. The appearance of HFS was a predictor of a longer progression-free survival. In fact, progression-free survival was elongated in the HFS group over and beyond the observation period of 60 months, which rendered the median progression-free survival calculation impossible. These findings reaffirm the importance of monitoring skin toxicity during treatment with TKI. We conclude that the appearance of adverse skin symptoms presages better outcomes in patients treated with sunitinib for mRCC.

Renal cell carcinoma is the 14th most common cancer worldwide. It is a heterogeneous group of histopathological entities, of which the most common is clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Approximately 20-30% of patients present initially with metastatic disease and an additional 20% will progress after radical surgical treatment. Metastatic disease that is non-feasible for surgical treatment remains incurable. Numerous studies have demonstrated that-with the introduction of new drugs-the treatment outcomes of metastatic disease have improved. The development of new therapies as well as the optimization and individualization of procedures allow us to hope for further progress in this area.

Sunitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) used in treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), gastrointestinal stromal tumors and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. One of the most common side effects related to sunitinib is hypothyroidism. Recent trials suggest correlation between the incidence of hypothyroidism and treatment outcome in patients treated with TKI. This study evaluates whether development of hypothyroidism is a predictive marker of progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib. Twenty-seven patients diagnosed with clear cell mRCC, after nephrectomy and in 'good' or 'intermediate' MSKCC risk prognostic group, were included in the study. All patients received sunitinib as a first-line treatment on a standard schedule (initial dose 50 mg/day, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). The thyroid-stimulating hormone serum levels were obtained at the baseline and every 12 weeks of treatment. In statistic analyses, we used Kaplan-Meier method for assessment of progression-free survival; for comparison of survival, we used log-rank test. In our study, the incidence of hypothyroidism was 44%. The patients who had developed hypothyroidism had better median PFS to patients with normal thyroid function 28,3 months [95% (CI) 20.4-36.2 months] versus 9.8 months (6.4-13.1 months). In survival analysis, we perceive that thyroid dysfunction is a predictive factor of a progression-free survival (PFS). In the unified group of patients, the development of hypothyroidism during treatment with sunitinib is a positive marker for PFS. During that treatment, thyroid function should be evaluated regularly.

Sunitinib, a multi-targeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is a first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in patients in 'low' and 'intermediate' Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Heng risk groups. Disruptions of hematopoiesis, such as anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia, are typically observed during sunitinib treatment. When it comes to RBC parameters, an increase in mean cell volume (MCV) tends to occur, meeting the criteria for macrocytosis in some patients (MCV > 100 fL). We examined changes in RBC parameters of 27 mRCC patients treated with sunitinib (initial dose of 50 mg/day, 6-week treatment: 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off) and correlated them with progression-free survival time (PFS). Patients who had macrocytosis after 3 treatment cycles had significantly longer PFS than those whose MCV stayed less than 100 fL (not reached vs. 11.2 months, p < 0.001). We also found a correlation between MCV values after the first and third treatment cycles and the risk of progression: HR of 0.9 (0.81-0.99) and 0.76 (0.65-0.90) per 1 fL increase in MCV, respectively. The mechanism of MCV elevation during sunitinib treatment has not yet been fully explained. One of the probable causes is sunitinib's inhibitory influence on c-Kit kinase, as is the case with imatinib. For mRCC patients, this phenomenon could help predict PFS, but since our sample was small, further studies are essential., Competing Interests: Jakub Kucharz is a member of Pfizer advisory board. Other authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Aims and Background: Clinical practice shows significant differences in treatment outcomes and toxicity of sunitinib across patients. This retrospective study assessed early predictive markers for progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with sunitinib in the first-line setting., Methods: We evaluated 28 patients with stage IV clear cell RCC (with good or intermediate MSKCC risk prognosis) treated at the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Cracow between 2008 and 2013. Data included demographic profiles, adverse events during first cycle of therapy, treatment delays, and treatment outcomes. Sunitinib was administered on a standard schedule (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). PFS values were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test; we identified independent PFS predictors using multiple Cox regression models., Results: PFS was significantly longer in patients who experienced at least 1 adverse event after the first cycle of sunitinib (median 17.6 months vs. 5.6; p = 0.006). Hypertension and hand-foot syndrome were significantly correlated with longer PFS (29.3 vs. 6.0 months; p = 0.002, and not reached vs. 9.8 months; p = 0.002, respectively). We observed a similar (though not significant) tendency for neutropenia (17.5 vs. 8.4 months; p = 0.055). In multiple Cox regression, hypertension was the only individual independent predictor of PFS, but the co-occurrence of any 2 or 3 sunitinib-induced adverse events also predicted longer survival., Conclusions: Although small, our study suggests that hypertension and hand-foot syndrome predict longer PFS in patients with clear cell RCC treated with sunitinib. The co-occurrence of 2 or more side effects seems also a significant predictor of longer survival. Larger studies are warranted to confirm the correlation between co-occurring side effects and PFS.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for approximately 3% of adult malignancies. For stage I - III RCC surgery is the primary treatment. Systemic therapy is used in the patients with disseminated disease (stage IV). Sunitinib malate is commonly used in the patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) rated as 'low' or 'intermediate' risk according to the Motzer scale. Treatment with sunitinib malate is associated with myelotoxicity. To assess its clinical significance we conducted a pilot study in a group of 10 patients. We noticed a gradual decrease in the mean haemoglobin level during subsequent treatment cycles. Alternations in the platelet count were of no clinical significance. Episodes of the neutropenia were noticed in the study group. In some patients neutrophil count decreased to the level that put them at risk of the infectious complications.