Search

Background: Belzutifan, a first-in-class HIF-2α inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity as monotherapy and in combination with cabozantinib in patients with previously treated advanced kidney cancer. The phase 2 LITESPARK-003 study was designed to determine the antitumour activity and safety of belzutifan in combination with cabozantinib in patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma that was previously untreated (cohort 1) or previously treated with immunotherapy (cohort 2). Here, we report results from cohort 1 of this clinical trial., Methods: LITESPARK-003 is an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study at ten hospitals and cancer centres in the USA. In cohort 1, eligible patients were at least 18 years of age, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and had received no previous systemic therapy for locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Patients received belzutifan 120 mg orally once daily and cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily until unacceptable adverse events, disease progression, or patient withdrawal. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. 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 Jan 10, 2023, we screened 138 patients for eligibility, and 50 (36%) were enrolled and assigned to cohort 1. The median age was 64 years (IQR 57-72). 40 (80%) of 50 patients were male and ten (20%) were female. 48 (96%) patients were White, one (2%) patient was Black or African American, and one (2%) was of a race in the other category. As of the data cutoff (May 15, 2023), median follow-up was 24·3 months (IQR 13·9-32·0). 35 (70%, 95% CI 55-82) of 50 patients had a confirmed objective response, including four (8%) who had a complete response and 31 (62%) who had a partial response. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (six [12%] patients), anaemia (five [10%] patients), and fatigue (four [8%] patients). Seven (14%) of 50 patients had serious treatment-related adverse events. No treatment-related deaths occurred., Interpretation: Belzutifan plus cabozantinib has promising antitumour activity in treatment-naive patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and further investigation of an HIF-2α inhibitor in combination with a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor as a treatment option in this population is warranted., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA, and the National Cancer Institute., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TKC reports institutional or personal and paid or unpaid support for research, advisory boards, consultancy, or honoraria in 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, GSK, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVIA, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Janssen, Kanaph, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck, NiKang, Nuscan, Novartis, OncoHost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest Therapeutics, and UpToDate and continuing medical education events (PeerView, OncLive, MJH Life Sciences, CCO, and Mashup Media) outside the submitted work; institutional patents filed on molecular alterations and immunotherapy response and toxicity and circulating tumour DNA; equity in Curesponse, InnDura Therapeutics, Osel, Pionyr, Precede Biosciences, Primium, and Tempest; service on committees for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Genitourinary Steering Committee, American Society of Clinical Oncology-European Society for Medical Oncology, Academic & Community Cancer Research United, and KidneyCAN; and mentorship of 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 from drug companies or royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter. TKC is supported in part by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney Specialised Programs of Research Excellence (2P50CA101942-16) and Program 5P30CA006516-56, Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, Pan-Mass Challenge, Hinda and Arthur Marcus Fund, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. JRM has received research funding (to their institution) from Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA, Arcus, Eisai, Genentech, Imugene, Trishula, Seagen, Exelixis, Dynamicure, Sillajen, Vyriad, Rubius Therapeutics, Peloton Therapeutics, and Corvus Pharmaceuticals; has received authorship royalties from UpToDate; and is a member of the University of Miami-Sylvester Cancer Center data safety monitoring board (institutional role). RF is a member of the Aveo Oncology phase 3 trial data safety monitoring board. DFM has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA, Eisai, Xilio, Aveo, Genentech, Cullinan, and Exelixis; and has received cancer research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA, Genentech, Exelixis, X4 Pharma, and Alkermes. EA has received research funding (to their institution) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cephalon, Chorus, Cougar Biotechnology, Eisai, EMD Serono, Evelo Biosciences, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA, Millennium, Modra Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Oncogenex, Onyx, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Takeda, Colvis Oncology, Lilly, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Research & Development, Leap Therapeutics, F Hoffman-La Roche, Loxo, Tolmar, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, AbbVie, and GI Therapeutics. SST has received research funding (to their institution) from Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA, Xencor, AVEO Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Pfizer, Nektar Therapeutics, and Iovance Biotherapeutics; consulting fees from FirstWord, Bristol Myers Squibb, AVEO Oncology, and Exelixis; honoraria from OncLive-MJH Life Sciences, Targeted Oncology, and CancerNetwork; support for attending meetings or travel from DAVA Oncology; and has a patent pending (for binding proteins specific for 5T4 and uses thereof). EIH has received research funding from Astellas Pharma, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calibr, Calithera Biosciences, Caris Life Sciences, Corcept Therapeutics, Corvis Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exelixis, Five Prime Therapeutics, Fortis, GSK, Gilead Sciences, Harpoon Therapeutics, F Hoffman-La Roche, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, iTeos Therapeutics, Janssen Research & Development, Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA, Mirati Therapeutics, Modra Pharmaceuticals, Oncolys BioPharma, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, POINT Biopharma, and Seagen; has had consulting or advisory role with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Caris Life Sciences, Janssen Research & Development, and Sanofi; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Sanofi, Janssen Research & Development, and Seagen; received funding for travel from Sanofi and Caris Life Science; and has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Janssen Research & Development, and Sanofi. DRS has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech-Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, GSK, Molecular Templates, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis, Regeneron, Lilly, BeiGene, Ipsen, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, AbbVie, Lyell Immunopharma, and Novocure; has received research funding (paid to their institution) from Genentech-Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, AstraZeneca, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center—Simmons Cancer Center, Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA, G1 Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Nektar, Celldex, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Astellas Pharma, GRAIL, Transgene, Aeglea Biotherapeutics, Ipsen, BIND Therapeutics, Eisai, ImClone Systems, Janssen Oncology, MedImmune, Agios, GSK, Tesaro, Cyteir, Novocure, Elevation Oncology, Calithera Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences, Arrys Therapeutics, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hutchison MediPharma, Incyte, Kronos Bio, Loxo, Macrogenics, Molecular Templates, PureTech, Razor Genomics, Repare Therapeutics, Rgenix, Tizona Therapeutics, Verastem, BioNTech, AbbVie, Amgen, Anheart Therapeutics, Ascendis Pharma, Endeavor BioMedicines, Erasca, Faeth Therapeutics, Fujifilm, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lyell Immunopharma, Millennium, Moderna Therapeutics, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Peloton Therapeutics, Shenzhen Chipscreen Biosciences, Stemline Therapeutics, Synthekine, Taiho Oncology, Tango Therapeutics, Tarveda Therapeutics, Zai Lab, Apollomics, Strata Oncology, and Asher Biotherapeutics; and has received travel and accommodation support from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Novartis. LK is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA. RFP and DV are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA and have stock ownership in Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA. TMB has received research funding (to their institution) from Lilly and has received consulting fees from Pfizer and Bayer. AD’S declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: The standard of care for patients with intermediate-to-high risk renal cell carcinoma is partial or radical nephrectomy followed by surveillance. We aimed to investigate use of nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma to determine recurrence-free survival compared with surgery only., Methods: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (PROSPER EA8143), patients were recruited from 183 community and academic sites across the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, with previously untreated clinical stage T2 or greater or T any N+ renal cell carcinoma of clear cell or non-clear cell histology planned for partial or radical nephrectomy. Selected patients with oligometastatic disease, who were disease free at other disease sites within 12 weeks of surgery, were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients using permuted blocks (block size of 4) within stratum (clinical TNM stage) to either nivolumab plus surgery, or surgery only followed by surveillance. In the nivolumab group, nivolumab 480 mg was administered before surgery, followed by nine adjuvant doses. The primary endpoint was investigator-reviewed recurrence-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma assessed in all randomly assigned patients regardless of histology. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started the assigned protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03055013, and is closed to accrual., Findings: Between Feb 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021, 819 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus surgery (404 [49%]) or surgery only (415 [51%]). 366 (91%) of 404 patients assigned to nivolumab plus surgery and 387 (93%) of 415 patients assigned to surgery only group started treatment. Median age was 61 years (IQR 53-69), 248 (30%) of 819 patients were female, 571 (70%) were male, 672 (88%) were White, and 77 (10%) were Hispanic or Latino. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee stopped the trial at a planned interim analysis (March 25, 2022) because of futility. Median follow-up was 30·4 months (IQR 21·5-42·4) in the nivolumab group and 30·1 months (21·9-41·8) in the surgery only group. 381 (94%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 399 (96%) of 415 in the surgery only group had renal cell carcinoma and were included in the recurrence-free survival analysis. As of data cutoff (May 24, 2023), recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between nivolumab (125 [33%] of 381 had recurrence-free survival events) versus surgery only (133 [33%] of 399; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·21]; one-sided p=0·32). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated lipase (17 [5%] of 366 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group vs none in the surgery only group), anaemia (seven [2%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [3%] vs one [<1%]), abdominal pain (four [1%] vs six [2%]), and increased serum amylase (nine [2%] vs none). 177 (48%) patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 93 (24%) in the surgery only group had grade 3-5 adverse events due to any cause, the most common of which were anaemia (23 [6%] vs 19 [5%]), hypertension (27 [7%] vs nine [2%]), and elevated lipase (18 [5%] vs six [2%]). 48 (12%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab group and 40 (10%) of 415 in the surgery only group died, of which eight (2%) and three (1%), respectively, were determined to be treatment-related., Interpretation: Perioperative nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab did not improve recurrence-free survival versus surgery only followed by surveillance in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma., Funding: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute and Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests VM reports support for attending meetings or travel from American College of Surgeons; and participation on the Advisory Board on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at Exelixis. VM also reports a leadership role (unpaid) on Society of Urologic Oncology Clinical Trials Consortia. DFM received payment or honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, Eisai, Xilio, Aveo, Genentech, Cullinan, and Exelixis; and support for attending meetings or travel from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, Pfizer, Exelixis, X4 Pharma, and Alkermes. LCH reports ownership of stock in Coherus and previous employment at Surface Oncology. SS reports grants or contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb and Exelixis to their institution; and royalties or licenses from Biogenex. SS also reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, and CRISPR Therapeutics; and a leadership or fiduciary role at American Association for Cancer Research as Senior Editor at Clinical Cancer Research and at the NCI National Cancer Institute as Renal Task Force Co-Chair. HE reports consulting fees for Janssen and Aveo advisory boards. NA reports grants or contracts from Exelixis, Genentech, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and consulting fees from Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Aveo, Merck, EMD Serono, and Sanofi. MAB reports institutional grants from Merck, Xencor, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, SeaGen, Incyte, Nektar, AstraZeneca, Tricon Pharmaceuticals, Genome & Company, AAA, Peloton Therapeutics, and Pfizer; and payment or honoraria for Advisory Board participation from Exelixis, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Calithera Biosciences, Genomic Health, Nektar, EMD Serono, SeaGen, and Sanofi. TMM reports payment to their institution for clinical trials from Merck, Curium, and ECOG; consulting fees from Impact Network and Aptitude Health; and honoraria from Exelixis and Blue Earth Diagnostics. TC reports support from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Neomorph, Nuscan/PrecedeBio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, CCO, and others), outside the submitted work. TC also reports institutional research funding related to clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Aveo, Arcus, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, and Takeda. TC also reports consulting fees from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Neomorph, Nuscan/PrecedeBio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, CCO, and others), outside the submitted work. TC also reports payment or honoraria from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Neomorph, Nuscan/PrecedeBio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, CCO, and others), outside the submitted work. TC also reports support for attending meetings or travel in relation to meetings, lectures, and advisory boards; and participates in the Aravive Data and Safety Monitoring Board or advisory board. TC also reports a patent related to ctDNA and biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (no royalties as of current date). TC also reports a leadership or fiduciary role in KidneyCan (unpaid) and committees for American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and Genitourinary Steering Committee of the NCI. TC also reports stock ownership (for being an advisor) of Pionyr, Tempest, Precede Bio, Osel, Curesponse, Immdura, and Primium. TC also reports no receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services, except for travel and accommodation (flights, hotel, and meals) related to advisory or consulting when travel needed. TC also reports to be supported in part by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE(2P50CA101942-16) and Program 5P30CA006516-56, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, Pan-Mass Challenge, Hinda and Arthur Marcus Fund, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at Dana Farber Cancer Institute. MDD reports participation on the Scientific Advisory Boards (honoraria received) at Merck, Eisai, Exelixis, and Janssen. DYH reports compensation from consulting work from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Ipsen, Exelixis, Pfizer, and Eisai. BS reports consulting fees from Merck, Veracyte, Telix, and Johnson and Johnson; payment or honoraria from Merck; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Telix. BCL reports a leadership or fiduciary role at Kidney Cancer Association as Chair of Board of Directors. JM reports participation on the NCI Central Institutional Review Board and has been recused from all discussions of this study. RU reports participation and financial support on a Data Safety Monitoring Board at Pfizer and other financial support on a steering committee at Merck. RU also reports a leadership or fiduciary role (non-financial support) at Haymarket Media as a board member. GB reports a leadership role during the study as President of the Society of Urologic Oncology–Clinical Trial Consortium. NBH reports participation in the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee atezolizumab at Roche Genentech and advisory boards at Bristol Myers Squibb and Eisai. NBH also reports a non-financial leadership role as ECOG ACRIN Genitourinary Committee Co-Chair. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

Background: Accumulation of the HIF-2α transcription factor is an oncogenic event implicated in the tumorigenesis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). In the phase I LITESPARK-001 study, the first-in-class HIF-2α inhibitor belzutifan demonstrated antitumor activity and an acceptable safety profile for pretreated patients with advanced ccRCC. Updated data with additional follow-up of > 40 months are presented., Methods: LITESPARK-001 is an ongoing open-label study with a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design followed by an expansion phase. Patients with ccRCC enrolled at 7 sites received belzutifan 120 mg orally once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. The data cutoff date was July 15, 2021. The primary end point was identifying the maximum tolerated dose and/or the recommended phase II dose. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) per RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment and safety., Results: Median follow-up was 41.2 months (range, 38.2-47.7). Patients received a median of 3 (range, 1-9) prior systemic therapies. Of 55 patients, 14 (25 %) achieved an objective response. Median DOR was not reached (range, 3.1 + to 38.0 + months). Adverse events (AEs) attributed to study treatment by investigator assessment were reported in 53 patients (96 %). 22 patients (40 %) had grade 3 treatment-related AEs; the most common were anemia (n = 13; 24 %) and hypoxia (n = 7; 13 %). No grade 4 or 5 treatment-related AEs occurred., Conclusion: After a median follow-up of 41.2 months, belzutifan monotherapy demonstrated durable antitumor activity in patients with advanced ccRCC and acceptable safety., Clinicaltrials: gov. NCT02974738., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest E. Jonasch has received research support from MSD, NiKang, Novartis, Arrowhead, Corvus, ProFoundBio, Telix, Aveo; consulting fees from Aveo, Esai, Exelixis, Ipsen, MSD, and NiKang; and honoraria from DAVA; has participated on advisory boards for Novartis; and has a leadership role with NCCN. T. M. Bauer has received research support from MSD, consulting fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, and BluePrint; and honoraria from Pfizer, Bayer, and Eli Lilly.K. P. Papadopoulos has received research support from 3D Medicines, Abbvie, ADC Therapeutics, Amgen, Anheart Therapeutics, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, F-Star, Incyte, Jounce, LillyLoxo, MSD, Mersana, Mirati, Pfizer, Regeneron, RevolutionMedicines, Syros Pharma, Tempest Therapeutics, Treadwell Therapeutics, CytomX, AstraZeneca, Kezar, Monte Rosa, and Storm; has received travel support from Jounce; and participated on advisory boards for Basilla, Bicycle, and Turning Point Therapuetics. E. R. Plimack has received research support from MSD, BMS, Seagen, and Genentech; has participated in advisory boards for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Aveo, BMS, Calithera, EMD Serono, Exelixis, IMV, Janssen, MEI, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron, Seagen, Signatera; and was a member of an external data monitoring committee for AstraZeneca and Infinity Pharma. J. R. Merchan has received research grants from MSD, Sillagen, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, EISAI, Exelixis, Imugene, Rubius Therapeutics, Trishula Therapeutics, Corvus, Peloton Therapeutics, and Vyriad; receives royalties from UpToDate; and has participated on an advisory board for MSD. D. F. McDermott has received research support from BMS, MSD, Genentech, Pfizer, Exelixis, X4 Pharma, and Alkermes, Inc; and has honoraria from BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Eisai Inc., Xilio, Aveo, Genentech, Cullinan, and Exelixis. M. Dror Michaelson has participated on advisory boards for MSD, Eisai, Exelixis, and Janssen. L. J. Appleman has received research support from MSD. A. Roy, R. F. Perini, and Y. Liu are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and has stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. T. K. Choueiri reports institutional and personal support, paid and unpaid support for research, participating in advisory boards, consultancy, and honoraria from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, MSD, Nikang, Nuscan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, UpToDate, and CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, and others), outside the submitted work; institutional patents filed on molecular mutations, immunotherapy response and toxicity, and circulating tumor DNA; equity in Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio, and CureResponse; 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; additional independent funding from drug companies or royalties for having received research around the subject matter paid to institution; and is supported in part by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE (2P50CA101942–16) and Program 5P30CA006516–56, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at DFCI., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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.)

Purpose: Sapanisertib is a kinase inhibitor that inhibits both mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and mTORC2. In this multicenter, single-arm phase II trial, we evaluated the efficacy of sapanisertib in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC; NCT03097328)., Methods: Patients with mRCC of any histology progressing through standard therapy (including prior mTOR inhibitors) had baseline biopsy and received sapanisertib 30 mg by mouth once weekly until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was objective response rate by RECIST 1.1. Tissue biomarkers of mTOR pathway activation were explored., Results: We enrolled 38 patients with mRCC (clear cell = 28; variant histology = 10) between August 2017 and November 2019. Twenty-four (63%) had received ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy; 17 (45%) had received prior rapalog therapy. The median follow-up was 10.4 (range 1-27.4) months. Objective response rate was two of 38 (5.3%; 90% CI, 1 to 15.6); the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 3.7). Twelve patients (32%) developed treatment-related grade 3 adverse events, with no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Alterations in the mTOR pathway genes were seen in 5 of 29 evaluable patients ( MTOR n = 1, PTEN n = 3, and TSC1 n = 1) with no association with response or PFS. Diminished or loss of PTEN expression by immunohistochemistry was seen in 8 of 21 patients and trended toward shorter PFS compared with intact PTEN (median 1.9 v 3.7 months; hazard ratio 2.5; 95% CI, 0.9 to 6.7; P = .055)., Conclusion: Sapanisertib had minimal activity in treatment-refractory mRCC independent of mTOR pathway alterations. Additional therapeutic strategies are needed for patients with refractory mRCC., Competing Interests: Bradley A. McGregorConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Genentech/Roche, Nextar, Janssen Oncology, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Dendreon, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera BiosciencesResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Seattle Genetics/Astellas (Inst), Pfizer/EMD Serono (Inst) Wanling XieConsulting or Advisory Role: Convergent Therapeutics Elio AdibEmployment: Amgen (I) Walter M. StadlerLeadership: EMA WellnessConsulting or Advisory Role: CVS Caremark, Sotio, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Bayer, Pfizer, Merck, Treadwell Therapeutics, CalicoResearch Funding: Bayer (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Merck (Inst), Millennium (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), X4 Pharma (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Seattle Genetics (I), Tesaro (Inst), Corvus Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Astellas Medivation (Inst), Amgen (Inst)Expert Testimony: TevaOther Relationship: UpToDate, American Cancer Society Yousef ZakhariaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Amgen, Castle Biosciences, Novartis, Exelixis, Pfizer, Cardinal Health, Bayer, Janssen, TTC Oncology, Clovis Oncology, EMD Serono, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Eisai (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Newlink Genetics Aijai AlvaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, BMSResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Prometheus (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Roche (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Progenics (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Arcus Biosciences (Inst), Harpoon Therapeutics (Inst), Progenics (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Janssen (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, BMS M. Dror MichaelsonEmployment: Cullinan Oncology (I)Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Jounce Therapeutics (I), Cullinan Oncology (I)Honoraria: Pfizer, Exelixis, Merck, EisaiConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Exelixis, Eisai, MerckResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Millennium (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Merck (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst)Expert Testimony: BayerOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/193824 Shilpa GuptaStock and Other Ownership Interests: Nektar, Moderna Therapeutics (I)Honoraria: Bristol Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: Gilead Sciences, Guardant Health, AVEO, EMD Serono, Pfizer, Merck, Loxo/LillySpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology Elaine T. LamConsulting or Advisory Role: Calithera BiosciencesResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Merck (Inst), Argos Therapeutics (Inst), Peloton Therapeutics (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Advaxis (Inst), Constellation Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Harpoon Therapeutics (Inst), Decibel Therapeutics (Inst), OnQuality Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Amgen (Inst), FORMA Therapeutics (Inst), Phosplatin Therapeutics (Inst), Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Decibel Therapeutics Xiao X. WeiHonoraria: OncLiveConsulting or Advisory Role: NovartisResearch Funding: Bristol Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Corvus Pharmaceuticals Kerry L. KilbridgeResearch Funding: Pfizer American Cancer Society Lauren HarshmanEmployment: Surface OncologyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Surface OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Genentech, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Exelixis, Bayer, Novartis, Jounce Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Ology Medical Education, Bristol Myers Squibb, Advanced Accelerator ApplicationsResearch Funding: Medivation/Astellas (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Sotio (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Dendreon (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Merck (Inst), Janssen Oncology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Endocyte (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech Sabina SignorettiConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, CRISPR therapeuticsResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Novartis (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Receives royalties from BioGenexOther Relationship: AACR, NCI Lynette ShollStock and Other Ownership Interests: Moderna TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: GenentechSpeakers' Bureau: LillyResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech David J. KwiatkowskiConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, AADIResearch Funding: AADi, Revolution Medicines, Genentech/Roche Rana R. McKayConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelixis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Myovant Sciences, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Tempus (Inst) Toni K. ChoueiriEmployment: Dana-Farber Cancer HospitalLeadership: Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, NCCN, KidneyCAN, ASCO, ESMOStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pionyr, Tempest Therapeutics, Osel, NuScanHonoraria: NCCN, UpToDate, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, ASCO, Harborside Press, Analysis Group, AstraZeneca, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Foundation Medicine, Eisai, PlatformQ Health, Clinical Care Options, Navinata Health, Kidney Cancer Association, Exelixis, Prometheus, Lpath, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, Cerulean Pharma, Alligent, EMD Serono, HERON, Lilly, Janssen Oncology, IQVIA, Aveo, NCI Genitourinary Cancers Steering CommitteeConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Cerulean Pharma, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Prometheus, Alligent, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Lpath, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, Peloton Therapeutics, UpToDate, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Analysis Group, Kidney Cancer Association, Clinical Care Options, PlatformQ Health, Navinata Health, Harborside Press, ASCO, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, EMD Serono, HERON, Lilly, ESMO, NiKang Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Aravive, Tempest Therapeutics, NuScan, Arcus BiosciencesResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Merck (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), TRACON Pharma (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Peloton Therapeutics (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Celldex (Inst), Agensys (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Prometheus (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Corvus Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Cerulean Pharma (Inst), Seattle Genetics/Astellas (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Foundation Medicine (Inst), Roche (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Analysis Group (Inst), NCI (Inst), GATEWAY for Cancer Research (Inst), Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (DOD) (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/058430, titled Biomarkers of Clinical Response and Benefit to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy (Inst); International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/12209, titled PBRM1 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-Immune Checkpoint Response (Inst), ctDNA technologiesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Cerulean Pharma, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Prometheus, Alligent, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Lpath, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, UpToDate, Peloton Therapeutics, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Analysis Group, Kidney Cancer Association, Clinical Care Options, PlatformQ Health, Harborside Press, Navinata Health, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, EMD Serono, HERON, Lilly, ESMOOther Relationship: Medical writing and editorial assistance support was provided by Communications companies funded by pharmaceutical companies such as ClinicalThinking, Health Interactions, Envision Pharma Group, Fishawack Group of Companies, and ParexelNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as "Preferred," "Other Recommended Regimens," or "Useful in Certain Circumstances." This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.

Background: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) accounts for ≤20% of RCC cases. Lenvatinib (a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor) in combination with everolimus (an mTOR inhibitor) is approved for the treatment of advanced RCC after one prior antiangiogenic therapy., Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of lenvatinib plus everolimus as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced nccRCC., Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study enrolled patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic nccRCC and no prior anticancer therapy for advanced disease., Intervention: Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) orally once daily., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by investigators according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety assessments. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ORRs were calculated using the two-sided Clopper-Pearson method. Median PFS and median OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and their 95% CIs were estimated via a generalized Brookmeyer and Crowley method., Results and Limitations: The study (start date: February 20, 2017) enrolled 31 patients with nccRCC (papillary, n = 20; chromophobe, n = 9; unclassified, n = 2). At the data cutoff date (July 17, 2019), the best overall response was a partial response (eight patients: papillary, n = 3; chromophobe, n = 4; unclassified, n = 1) for an overall ORR of 26% (95% CI 12-45). Median PFS was 9.2 mo (95% CI 5.5-not estimable), and median OS was 15.6 mo (95% CI 9.2-not estimable). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (71%), diarrhea (58%), decreased appetite (55%), nausea (55%), and vomiting (52%). Limitations include the small sample size and single-arm design., Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus everolimus showed promising anticancer activity in patients with advanced nccRCC with an ORR of 26% and is worthy of further study. The safety profile was consistent with the established profile of the study-drug combination., Patient Summary: We examined the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus as the first therapy for 31 patients who had advanced nccRCC. We found that this treatment seemed effective, because most patients had a decrease in tumor size and manageable treatment-related side effects., Clinical Registration: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov as NCT02915783., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the guidelines, including changes to certain systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC. They also discuss the addition of a new section to the guidelines that identifies and describes the most common hereditary RCC syndromes and provides recommendations for genetic testing, surveillance, and/or treatment options for patients who are suspected or confirmed to have one of these syndromes.

Improving early cancer detection has the potential to substantially reduce cancer-related mortality. Cell-free methylated DNA immunoprecipitation and high-throughput sequencing (cfMeDIP-seq) is a highly sensitive assay capable of detecting early-stage tumors. We report accurate classification of patients across all stages of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in plasma (area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of 0.99) and demonstrate the validity of this assay to identify patients with RCC using urine cell-free DNA (cfDNA; AUROC of 0.86).

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences for patients with intermediate- to poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients & methods: A discrete event simulation model was developed to estimate patients' lifetime costs and survival. Efficacy inputs were derived from the CheckMate 214 and CheckMate 025 studies and network meta-analyses. Safety and cost data were obtained from the published literature. Results: The estimated average quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was the highest on nivolumab + ipilimumab-initiated sequences (3.6-5.3 QALYs) versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-initiated sequences (2.1-3.7 QALYs). Incremental cost per QALY gained for nivolumab + ipilimumab-initiated sequences was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 versus other sequences. Conclusion: Immuno-oncology combination therapy followed by TKIs is cost-effective versus TKI sequences followed by immuno-oncology or sequencing TKIs.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Cabozantinib treatment prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and improved objective response rate (ORR) compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of intermediate or poor risk by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria in the phase II CABOSUN trial (NCT01835158). In the trial, 157 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or sunitinib, stratified by IMDC risk group and presence of bone metastases. Here, PFS and ORR, both determined by independent radiology committee (IRC), were analyzed by subgroups of baseline characteristics. Cabozantinib treatment was generally associated with improved PFS and ORR versus sunitinib across subgroups, including in groups defined by IMDC risk group, bone metastases, age, and tumor burden. Clinical trial identification number NCT01835158., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© 2019 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Lessons Learned: The combination of axitinib and crizotinib has a manageable safety and tolerability profile, consistent with the profiles of the individual agents when administered as monotherapy.The antitumor activity reported here for the combination axitinib/crizotinib does not support further study of this combination treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma given the current treatment landscape., Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors have been successfully used to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, resistance eventually develops in most cases. Tyrosine protein kinase Met (MET) expression increases following VEGF inhibition, and inhibition of both has shown additive effects in controlling tumor growth and metastasis. We therefore conducted a study of axitinib plus crizotinib in advanced solid tumors and mRCC., Methods: This phase Ib study included a dose-escalation phase (starting doses: axitinib 3 mg plus crizotinib 200 mg) to estimate maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in patients with solid tumors and a dose-expansion phase to examine preliminary efficacy in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and biomarkers were also assessed., Results: No patients in the dose-escalation phase ( n = 22) experienced dose-limiting toxicity; MTD was estimated to be axitinib 5 mg plus crizotinib 250 mg. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were hypertension (18.2%) and fatigue (9.1%). In the dose-expansion phase, overall response rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-54.3), and progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.5-not reached)., Conclusion: The combination of axitinib plus crizotinib, at estimated MTD, had a manageable safety profile and showed evidence of modest antitumor activity in mRCC., (© AlphaMed Press; the data published online to support this summary are the property of the authors.)

Objective: Advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is commonly treated with vascular endothelial growth factor or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors. As new therapies emerge, interest grows in gaining a deeper understanding of treatment sequences. Recently, we developed a patient-level, discretely integrated condition event (DICE) simulation to estimate survival and lifetime costs for various cancer therapies, using a US payer perspective. Using this model, we explored the impact of treatments such as nivolumab and cabozantinib, and compared the clinical outcomes and cost consequences of commonly used treatment algorithms for patients with advanced RCC., Methods: Included treatment sequences were pazopanib or sunitinib as first-line treatment, followed by nivolumab, cabozantinib, axitinib, pazopanib or everolimus. Efficacy inputs were derived from the CheckMate 025 trial and a network meta-analysis based on available literature. Safety and cost data were obtained from publicly available sources or literature., Results: Based on our analysis, the average cost per life-year (LY) was lowest for sequences including nivolumab (sunitinib → nivolumab, $75,268/LY; pazopanib → nivolumab, $84,459/LY) versus axitinib, pazopanib, everolimus and cabozantinib as second-line treatments. Incremental costs per LY gained were $49,592, $73,927 and $30,534 for nivolumab versus axitinib, pazopanib and everolimus-containing sequences, respectively. The model suggests that nivolumab offers marginally higher life expectancy at a lower cost versus cabozantinib-including sequences., Conclusion: Treatment sequences using nivolumab in the second-line setting are less costly compared with sequential use of targeted agents. In addition to efficacy and safety data, cost considerations may be taken into account when considering treatment algorithms for patients with advanced RCC., Competing Interests: B. Deniz, A. Ambavane, and A. Altincatal are employees of Evidera. S. Yang, J. Doan, and S. Rao are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Employment by these commercial entities does not alter adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. M. D. Michaelson has no conflicts of interest.

Combination therapies involving antiangiogenic agents plus immune checkpoint inhibitors have recently demonstrated clinical efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This commentary summarizes the clinical advances and reviews the potential implications for RCC and other advanced solid tumors., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.

Background: TRC105 is an IgG1 endoglin monoclonal antibody that potentiates VEGF inhibitors in preclinical models. We assessed safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of TRC105 in combination with axitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Subjects, Materials, and Methods: Heavily pretreated mRCC patients were treated with TRC105 weekly (8 mg/kg and then 10 mg/kg) in combination with axitinib (initially at 5 mg b.i.d. and then escalated per patient tolerance to a maximum of 10 mg b.i.d.) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity using a standard 3 + 3 phase I design., Results: Eighteen patients (median number of prior therapies = 3) were treated. TRC105 dose escalation proceeded to 10 mg/kg weekly without dose-limiting toxicity. Adverse event characteristics of each drug were not increased in frequency or severity when the two drugs were administered concurrently. TRC105 and axitinib demonstrated preliminary evidence of activity, including partial responses (PR) by RECIST in 29% of patients, and median progression-free survival (11.3 months). None of the patients with PR had PR to prior first-line treatment. Lower baseline levels of osteopontin and higher baseline levels of TGF-β receptor 3 correlated with overall response rate., Conclusion: TRC105 at 8 and 10 mg/kg weekly was well tolerated in combination with axitinib, with encouraging evidence of activity in patients with mRCC. A multicenter, randomized phase II trial of TRC105 and axitinib has recently completed enrollment (NCT01806064)., Implications for Practice: TRC105 is a monoclonal antibody to endoglin (CD105), a receptor densely expressed on proliferating endothelial cells and also on renal cancer stem cells that is implicated as a mediator of resistance to inhibitors of the VEGF pathway. In this Phase I trial, TRC105 combined safely with axitinib at the recommended single agent doses of each drug in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The combination demonstrated durable activity in a VEGF inhibitor-refractory population and modulated several angiogenic biomarkers. A randomized Phase II trial testing TRC105 in combination with axitinib in clear cell renal cell carcinoma has completed accrual., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Purpose: This study investigates the biologic activity of radium-223 with VEGF-targeted therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) and bone metastases. Patients and Methods: Fifteen treatment-naïve patients ( n = 15) received pazopanib 800 mg orally once daily, and 15 previously treated patients received sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily. Radium-223 55 kilobecquerel/kg was administered concurrently every 4 weeks for up to six infusions in both cohorts. The primary endpoint was decline in bone turnover markers (Procollagen I Intact N-Terminal, N-telopeptide, C-telopeptide, osteocalcin, and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase) compared with baseline. Secondary endpoints included safety, rate of symptomatic skeletal event (SSE) and time to first SSE, objective response rate, change in analgesic use, and quality of life. Exploratory analysis of tumor genomic alterations was performed. Results: Of the 30 patients enrolled, 83% had IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk disease, 33% had liver metastases, and 83% had a history of SSE prior to enrollment. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. All bone turnover markers significantly declined from baseline at week 8 and 16. Forty percent of patients experienced treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events. Response rates were 15% and 18% per RECIST v1.1 and bone response was 50% and 30% per MD Anderson criteria, in the pazopanib and sorafenib cohort, respectively. Median SSE-free interval was 5.8 months and not reached, respectively. Analgesic use remained stable over the study time. Conclusions: Radium-223 combined with VEGF-targeted therapy is biologically active and safe. Randomized-controlled trials are needed to define the role of radium-223 in aRCC with skeletal metastases. Clin Cancer Res; 24(17); 4081-8. ©2018 AACR ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: In oncology, extrapolation of clinical outcomes beyond trial duration is traditionally achieved by parametric survival analysis using population-level outcomes. This approach may not fully capture the benefit/risk profile of immunotherapies due to their unique mechanisms of action. We evaluated an alternative approach-dynamic modeling-to predict outcomes in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We compared standard parametric fitting and dynamic modeling for survival estimation of nivolumab and everolimus using data from the phase III CheckMate 025 study., Methods: We developed two statistical approaches to predict longer-term outcomes (progression, treatment discontinuation, and survival) for nivolumab and everolimus, then compared these predictions against follow-up clinical trial data to assess their proximity to observed outcomes. For the parametric survival analyses, we selected a probability distribution based on its fit to observed population-level outcomes at 14-month minimum follow-up and used it to predict longer-term outcomes. For dynamic modeling, we used a multivariate Cox regression based on patient-level data, which included risk scores, and probability and duration of response as predictors of longer-term outcomes. Both sets of predictions were compared against trial data with 26- and 38-month minimum follow-up., Results: Both statistical approaches led to comparable fits to observed trial data for median progression, discontinuation, and survival. However, beyond the trial duration, mean survival predictions differed substantially between methods for nivolumab (30.8 and 51.5 months), but not everolimus (27.2 and 29.8 months). Longer-term follow-up data from CheckMate 025 and phase I/II studies resembled dynamic model predictions for nivolumab., Conclusions: Dynamic modeling can be a good alternative to parametric survival fitting for immunotherapies because it may help better capture the longer-term benefit/risk profile and support health-economic evaluations of immunotherapies., Competing Interests: B. Deniz, A. Altincatal, and A. Ambavane are employees of Evidera. S. Yang, S. Rao, J. Doan, and B. Malcolm are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Employment by these commercial entities does not alter adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. M. D. Michaelson has no conflicts of interest.

Background: The randomised phase 2 CABOSUN trial comparing cabozantinib with sunitinib as initial therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of intermediate or poor risk met the primary end-point of improving progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by investigator. We report PFS by independent radiology review committee (IRC) assessment, ORR per IRC and updated overall survival (OS)., Patients and Methods: Previously untreated patients with advanced RCC of intermediate or poor risk by IMDC criteria were randomised 1:1 to cabozantinib 60 mg daily or sunitinib 50 mg daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Stratification was by risk group and presence of bone metastases., Results: A total of 157 patients were randomised 1:1 to cabozantinib (n = 79) or sunitinib (n = 78). Median PFS per IRC was 8.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.8-14.0) versus 5.3 months (95% CI 3.0-8.2) for cabozantinib versus sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48 [95% CI 0.31-0.74]; two-sided p = 0.0008), and ORR per IRC was 20% (95% CI 12.0-30.8) versus 9% (95% CI 3.7-17.6), respectively. Subgroup analyses of PFS by stratification factors and MET tumour expression were consistent with results for the overall population. With a median follow-up of 34.5 months, median OS was 26.6 months (95% CI 14.6-not estimable) with cabozantinib and 21.2 months (95% CI 16.3-27.4) with sunitinib (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.53-1.21]. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 68% for cabozantinib and 65% for sunitinib., Conclusions: In this phase 2 trial, cabozantinib treatment significantly prolonged PFS per IRC compared with sunitinib as initial systemic therapy for advanced RCC of poor or intermediate risk., Trial Registration Number: NCT01835158., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The current standard of care for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients is PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors until progression or toxicity. Here, we characterize the clinical outcomes for 19 mRCC patients who experienced an initial clinical response (any degree of tumor shrinkage), but after immune-related adverse events (irAE) discontinued all systemic therapy. Clinical baseline characteristics, outcomes, and survival data were collected. The primary endpoint was time to progression from the date of treatment cessation (TTP). Most patients had clear cell histology and received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy as second-line or later treatment. Median time on PD-1/PD-L1 therapy was 5.5 months (range, 0.7-46.5) and median TTP was 18.4 months (95% CI, 4.7-54.3) per Kaplan-Meier estimation. The irAEs included arthropathies, ophthalmopathies, myositis, pneumonitis, and diarrhea. We demonstrate that 68.4% of patients ( n = 13) experienced durable clinical benefit off treatment (TTP of at least 6 months), with 36% ( n = 7) of patients remaining off subsequent treatment for over a year after their last dose of anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Three patients with tumor growth found in a follow-up visit, underwent subsequent surgical intervention, and remain off systemic treatment. Nine patients (47.4%) have ongoing irAEs. Our results show that patients who benefitted clinically from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy can experience sustained beneficial responses, not needing further therapies after the initial discontinuation of treatment due to irAEs. Investigation of biomarkers indicating sustained benefit to checkpoint blockers are needed. Cancer Immunol Res; 6(4); 402-8. ©2018 AACR ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: We conducted a retrospective analysis of two clinical trials in treatment-naïve patients (n = 402) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with axitinib. Our objective was to compare duration of treatment (DT) and clinical outcome in patients who achieved DT >18 months (longer DT) versus ≤18 months (shorter DT)., Patients and Methods: DT, objective response rate (ORR), tumor shrinkage, and overall survival (OS) were summarized for patients with longer and shorter DT., Results: Overall, 152 patients (37.8%) had longer DT and 250 (62.2%) had shorter DT (median, 34.7 vs. 6.5 months, respectively). ORR in all 402 patients with advanced RCC was 43.5%. ORR was 75% for longer DT versus 24.4% for shorter DT (p < 0.0001). More patients with longer DT versus shorter DT had ≥10% tumor shrinkage at first scan (74.8% vs. 55.3%; p = 0.0001) and maximum on-study tumor shrinkage was greater in longer-DT versus shorter-DT group (-51.8% vs. -22.1%; p < 0.0001). Median OS was 32.6 months in the overall population while in the patients with longer DT the median was not reached. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) grade ≥3 were more frequent in longer-DT versus shorter-DT and included hypertension (25.7% vs. 18.8%), diarrhea (15.1% vs. 4.4%), and weight decrease (11.2% vs. 3.2%); however, these AEs decreased over time in both groups. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, favorable hematology values, no bone or liver metastases, and baseline tumor burden below the overall median were associated with longer DT., Conclusions: Longer duration (>18 months) of axitinib treatment was associated with increased frequency of early tumor shrinkage, greater magnitude of tumor shrinkage, and a favorable OS.

Background: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) models categorize patients with 1 or 2 risk factors as intermediate prognosis (INTMP). This category encompasses 15 and 19 permutations of the MSKCC and IMDC risk factors, respectively. The purpose of the present retrospective analysis of data from INTMP patients in 6 clinical trials was to determine whether this heterogeneity influences the response to sunitinib., Patients and Methods: Patients with INTMP metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) were identified using the MSKCC and IMDC classifications. The statistical data were analyzed using Cox regression analysis, Kaplan-Meier methods, and Pearson χ 2 tests., Results: The patient characteristics and risk factors were similar in the MSKCC (n = 548) and IMDC (n = 517) groups. Overall, 59% had 1 risk factor and 41% had 2 risk factors. The most common was low hemoglobin alone or with an interval of < 1 year since diagnosis. In both groups, patients with 1 risk factor had longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) than did those with 2 risk factors (P < .001 for both outcomes). Patients in the IMDC group with 1 risk factor had a greater objective response rate (ORR; P = .023). In both groups, OS was longer for patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 than for those with ECOG PS 1 or 2 (P < .001). An ECOG PS of 0 was also associated with superior PFS and ORR in the MSKCC group (P < .05)., Conclusion: INTMP comprises a heterogeneous group of mRCC patients in whom the number of risk factors and ECOG PS might predict the outcome with sunitinib., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose Cabozantinib is an oral potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, MET, and AXL and is a standard second-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This randomized phase II multicenter trial evaluated cabozantinib compared with sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with mRCC. Patients and Methods Eligible patients had untreated clear cell mRCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 and were intermediate or poor risk per International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria. Patients were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to cabozantinib (60 mg once per day) or sunitinib (50 mg once per day; 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, and safety were secondary end points. Results From July 2013 to April 2015, 157 patients were randomly assigned (cabozantinib, n = 79; sunitinib, n = 78). Compared with sunitinib, cabozantinib treatment significantly increased median PFS (8.2 v 5.6 months) and was associated with a 34% reduction in rate of progression or death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.95; one-sided P = .012). ORR was 33% (95% CI, 23 to 44) for cabozantinib versus 12% (95% CI, 5.4 to 21) for sunitinib. All-causality grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 67% for cabozantinib and 68% for sunitinib and included diarrhea (cabozantinib, 10% v sunitinib, 11%), fatigue (6% v 15%), hypertension (28% v 22%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (8% v 4%), and hematologic adverse events (3% v 22%). Conclusion Cabozantinib demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in PFS and ORR over standard-of-care sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with intermediate- or poor-risk mRCC.

Background: Inhibiting VEGF and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways are standard treatment approaches for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Here we report the activity and safety of the VEGF ligand inhibitor bevacizumab and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus combination in patients with clear cell (CC) and non-clear cell (NCC) mRCC whose disease had failed to respond to prior VEGF blockade., Patients and Methods: In this phase 2 investigator-initiated multicenter study, patients received bevacizumab and temsirolimus. The primary end point was 4-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. Secondary end points included overall response rate, median overall survival (OS), toxicity, and correlative studies of biomarkers downstream of mTOR., Results: Forty patients received at least 1 dose of therapy. Thirty-three (82.5%) had favorable/intermediate risk disease according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria, 13 (32.5%) with nccRCC histology. Nineteen (48.7%) had primary vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-refractory disease. The 4-month PFS rate was 65%. Overall median PFS and OS were 5.6 and 12.2 months. Median PFS and OS were 6.5 and 9.6 months in patients with primary VEGFR TKI-refractory disease, and 5.6 months and 13.1 months in patients with nccRCC. Dose reductions were needed in 80% of patients. Most frequent toxicities included fatigue, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and proteinuria. Dose discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 27.5% of patients. Baseline tumor immunohistochemistry for phospho-S6 protein was not associated with clinical benefit., Conclusion: Combining bevacizumab and temsirolimus in patients previously treated with VEGFR TKI was possible but with dose reductions and treatment discontinuations. This combination resulted in modest activity, including in patients with primary VEGF-refractory disease and NCC histology., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We examined the hypothesis that mutations in mTOR pathway genes are associated with response to rapalogs in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Experimental Design: We studied a cohort of mRCC patients who were treated with mTOR inhibitors with distinct clinical outcomes. Tumor DNA from 79 subjects was successfully analyzed for mutations using targeted next-generation sequencing of 560 cancer genes. Responders were defined as those with partial response (PR) by RECIST v1.0 or stable disease with any tumor shrinkage for 6 months or longer. Nonresponders were defined as those with disease progression during the first 3 months of therapy. Fisher exact test assessed the association between mutation status in mTOR pathway genes and treatment response., Results: Mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 were more common in responders, 12 (28%) of 43, than nonresponders, 4 (11%) of 36 (P = 0.06). Mutations in TSC1 or TSC2 alone were also more common in responders, 9 (21%), than nonresponders, 2(6%), (P = 0.05). Furthermore, 5 (42%) of 12 subjects with PR had mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 compared with 4 (11%) of 36 nonresponders (P = 0.03). Eight additional non-mTOR pathway genes were found to be mutated in at least 4 of 79 tumors (5%); none were associated positively with response., Conclusions: In this cohort of mRCC patients, mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 were more common in patients who experienced clinical benefit from rapalogs than in those who progressed. However, a substantial fraction of responders (24 of 43, 56%) had no mTOR pathway mutation identified. Clin Cancer Res; 22(10); 2445-52. ©2016 AACRSee related commentary by Voss and Hsieh, p. 2320., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) prognostic models may be improved by incorporating treatment-induced toxicities., Methods: In sunitinib-treated mRCC patients (N=770), baseline prognostic factors and treatment-induced toxicities (hypertension (systolic blood pressure ⩾140 mm Hg), neutropenia (grade ⩾2), thrombocytopenia (grade ⩾2), hand-foot syndrome (grade >0), and asthenia/fatigue (grade >0)) were analysed in multivariate analyses of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) end points., Results: On-treatment neutropenia and hypertension were associated with longer PFS (P=0.0276 and P<0.0001, respectively) and OS (P=0.0014 and P<0.0001, respectively), independent of baseline prognostic factors, including International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria. By 12-week landmark analysis, neutropenia was significantly associated with longer PFS and OS (P=0.013 and P=0.0122, respectively) and hypertension or hand-foot syndrome with longer OS (P=0.0036 and P=0.0218, respectively). The concordance index was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.63-0.67) for IMDC classification alone and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.70-0.74) when combined with hypertension and neutropenia. Considering hypertension and neutropenia (developing both vs neither) changed IMDC-predicted median OS in each IMDC risk group (favourable: 45.3 vs 19.5 months; intermediate: 32.5 vs 8.0 months; poor: 21.1 vs 4.8 months)., Conclusions: On-treatment neutropenia and hypertension are independent biomarkers of sunitinib efficacy and may add prognostic accuracy to the IMDC model.

Background: Currently, metastatic renal cell carcinoma is treated with sequential single agents targeting VEGF or mTOR. Here, we aimed to assess lenvatinib, everolimus, or their combination as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma., Methods: We did a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial at 37 centres in five countries and enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma. We included patients who had received treatment with a VEGF-targeted therapy and progressed on or within 9 months of stopping that agent. Patients were randomised via an interactive voice response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to either lenvatinib (24 mg/day), everolimus (10 mg/day), or lenvatinib plus everolimus (18 mg/day and 5 mg/day, respectively) administered orally in continuous 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The randomisation procedure dynamically minimised imbalances between treatment groups for the stratification factors haemoglobin and corrected serum calcium. The primary objective was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is closed to enrolment but patients' treatment and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01136733., Findings: Between March 16, 2012, and June 19, 2013, 153 patients were randomly allocated to receive either the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus (n=51), single-agent lenvatinib (n=52), or single-agent everolimus (n=50). Lenvatinib plus everolimus significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (median 14·6 months [95% CI 5·9-20·1] vs 5·5 months [3·5-7·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·24-0·68; p=0·0005), but not compared with lenvatinib alone (7·4 months [95% CI 5·6-10·2]; HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·30-1·10; p=0·12). Single-agent lenvatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·38-0·98; p=0·048). Grade 3 and 4 events occurred in fewer patients allocated single-agent everolimus (25 [50%]) compared with those assigned lenvatinib alone (41 [79%]) or lenvatinib plus everolimus (36 [71%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in patients allocated lenvatinib plus everolimus was diarrhoea (ten [20%]), in those assigned single-agent lenvatinib it was proteinuria (ten [19%]), and in those assigned single-agent everolimus it was anaemia (six [12%]). Two deaths were deemed related to study drug, one cerebral haemorrhage in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group and one myocardial infarction with single-agent lenvatinib., Interpretation: Lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib alone resulted in a progression-free survival benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed after one previous VEGF-targeted therapy. Further study of lenvatinib is warranted in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma., Funding: Eisai Inc., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Trebananib, an investigational recombinant peptide-Fc fusion protein, neutralizes the receptor-ligand interaction between Tie2 and angiopoietin-1/2. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate trebananib plus sunitinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma., Patients and Methods: Adults with metastatic renal cell carcinoma were enrolled sequentially onto two cohorts that received sunitinib 50 mg once per day for 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off and intravenous trebananib once per week at a dose of 10 mg/kg in cohort A or 15 mg/kg in cohort B. The primary end points were incidences of adverse events (AEs) and dose interruptions of sunitinib during the first 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included objective response rate and progression-free survival., Results: Eighty-five patients were enrolled: 43 in cohort A, and 42 in cohort B. During the first 12 weeks of treatment, 58% and 57% of patients in cohorts A and B, respectively, had sunitinib dose interruptions (dose decrease, withholding, or withdrawal). The most frequent AEs were diarrhea (cohort A, 74%; cohort B, 67%), mucosal inflammation (cohort A, 49%; cohort B, 60%), and hypertension (cohort A, 52%; cohort B, 45%). AEs of grade 3 or greater occurred in 58% of patients in cohort A and in 69% of patients in cohort B. The objective response rate was 58% and 63% in cohorts A and B, respectively. The median progression-free survival time was 13.9 months (95% CI, 10.4 to 19.2) and 16.3 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 21.4) in cohorts A and B, respectively. The median overall survival time was 36 months (95% CI, 25.2 to not estimable) in cohort A and was not estimable (median follow-up, 25 months) in cohort B., Conclusion: Trebananib plus sunitinib seemed to increase toxicity at the tested doses. Efficacy results suggest a potential benefit for the addition of trebananib to sunitinib., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is associated with an aggressive biology and a poor prognosis. Poor-risk RCC is defined by clinical prognostic factors and demonstrates similarly aggressive behavior. No standard treatment exists for patients with sarcomatoid RCC, and treatment options for patients with poor-risk disease are of limited benefit. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of antiangiogenic therapy in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy in clinically aggressive RCC., Methods: This was a phase 2, single-arm trial of sunitinib and gemcitabine in patients with sarcomatoid or poor-risk RCC. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included the time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker correlatives., Results: Overall, 39 patients had sarcomatoid RCC, and 33 had poor-risk RCC. The ORR was 26% for patients with sarcomatoid RCC and 24% for patients with poor-risk RCC. The median TTP and OS for patients with sarcomatoid RCC were 5 and 10 months, respectively. For patients with poor-risk disease, the median TTP and OS were 5.5 and 15 months, respectively. Patients whose tumors had >10% sarcomatoid histology had a higher clinical benefit rate (ORR plus stable disease) than those with ≤10% sarcomatoid histology (P = .04). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia (n = 20), anemia (n = 10), and fatigue (n = 7)., Conclusions: These results suggest that antiangiogenic therapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy are an active and well-tolerated combination for patients with aggressive RCC. The combination may be more efficacious than either therapy alone and is currently under further investigation., (© 2015 American Cancer Society.)

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal carcinoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the recent updates/changes in these guidelines, and updates include axitinib as first-line treatment option for patients with clear cell renal carcinoma, new data to support pazopanib as subsequent therapy for patients with clear cell carcinoma after first-line treatment with another tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and guidelines for follow-up of patients with renal cell carcinoma., (Copyright © 2015 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.)

Background: Using phase 3 trial data for sunitinib versus interferon (IFN)-α in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, retrospective analyses characterized sunitinib-associated fatigue and its impact on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL)., Methods: Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg/day on a schedule of 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (375 patients) or IFN-α at a dose of 9 MU subcutaneously 3 times per week (360 patients). HRQoL was self-assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-15-item (FKSI-15) questionnaire, with fatigue assessed using its Disease-Related Symptoms subscale. Fatigue was also assessed by providers using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). A repeated-measures model (M1) and random intercept-slope model (M2) characterized sunitinib-associated fatigue over time. Another repeated-measures model examined the relationship between HRQoL scores and CTCAE fatigue grade., Results: M1 demonstrated that the initial increase in patient-reported fatigue with sunitinib was worst during cycle 1, with mean values numerically better at subsequent cycles; most pairwise comparisons of consecutive CTCAE fatigue cycle means were not found to be statistically significant. M2 demonstrated that the overall trend (slope) for patient-reported and CTCAE fatigue with sunitinib was not statistically different from 0. The relationship between most HRQoL scores and CTCAE fatigue was close to linear regardless of treatment, with lower scores (worse HRQoL) corresponding to higher fatigue grade. The majority of HRQoL scores were better with sunitinib versus IFN-α for the same CTCAE fatigue grade., Conclusions: Patients reported worse fatigue during the first sunitinib cycle. However, in subsequent consecutive cycles, less fatigue was reported with no statistically significant worsening. CTCAE fatigue assessment may not fully capture patient treatment experience., (© 2014 American Cancer Society.)

Objectives: Many patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are found to have lung nodules at the time of diagnosis. The significance of these nodules is unclear. This study sought to determine whether the presence of indeterminate lung nodules affects survival for patients with early-stage RCC., Methods and Materials: A retrospective review was performed of patients with stages I to III RCC at an academic hospital who underwent nephrectomy between 2001 and 2006 and had baseline imaging available for review. Presence of lung nodule(s) was determined, along with patient and disease characteristics. The time from diagnosis to last known follow-up, metastasis, and death were determined. The study follow-up period extended to July 2012. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models assessed disease-free and overall survival., Results: Of 548 patients, 240 met the inclusion criteria. Lung nodules were absent in 148 and present in 92 cases. Disease-free survival was associated with the presence of nodules (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.04-3.46; P = 0.0362), tumor stage (stage II-HR = 5.61; 95% CI: 2.69-11.72; P<0.001 and stage III-HR = 2.49; 95% CI: 1.21-5.10; P = 0.0129) and tumor grade (HR = 2.43 for grades 3 or 4; 95% CI: 1.31-4.53; P = 0.005). The number and size of nodules were not associated with survival. Overall survival was associated with Charlson comorbidity score (HR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.15-1.47; P<0.0001) and primary tumor size (HR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.14-1.46; P<0.0001) but not the presence of lung nodules (HR = 1.73; 95% CI: 0.83-3.60; P = 0.1454)., Conclusions: The presence of indeterminate lung nodules had a negative effect on disease-free survival. Stage and grade were also significant. These findings underscore the importance of baseline imaging and vigilant surveillance of patients in whom nodules are identified., (© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Lenvatinib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR1-3, FGFR1-4, PDGFRβ, RET, and KIT. Everolimus is an oral mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This phase 1b study assessed safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and preliminary antitumor activity of lenvatinib plus everolimus in metastatic RCC (mRCC) patients., Methods: Patients with advanced unresectable or mRCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 were eligible (number of prior treatments not restricted). Starting dose was lenvatinib 12 mg once daily with everolimus 5 mg once daily administered continuously in 28-day cycles using a conventional 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. At the MTD, additional patients were enrolled in an expansion cohort., Results: Twenty patients (mean 58.4 years) received lenvatinib [12 mg (n = 7); 18 mg (n = 11); 24 mg (n = 2)] plus everolimus 5 mg. MTD was established as once daily lenvatinib 18 mg plus everolimus 5 mg. The most common treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (all dosing cohorts) were fatigue 60 % (Grade ≥3: 10 %), mucosal inflammation 50 %, proteinuria (Grade ≥3: 15 %), diarrhea (Grade ≥3: 10 %), vomiting (Grade ≥3: 5 %), hypertension, and nausea, each 40 %. In MTD and lowest-dose cohorts (n = 18), best responses of partial response and stable disease were achieved in 6 (33 %) and 9 (50 %) patients, respectively., Conclusions: Lenvatinib 18 mg combined with everolimus 5 mg was associated with manageable toxicity consistent with individual agents and no new safety signals. Observed activity warrants further evaluation of the combination in advanced RCC patients.

Purpose: We investigated potential biomarkers of efficacy in a phase III trial of sunitinib versus interferon-alpha (IFN-α), first-line in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), by analyzing plasma levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, VEGF-C, soluble VEGF receptor-3 (sVEGFR-3) and interleukin (IL)-8., Methods: Seven hundred and fifty mRCC patients were randomized to oral sunitinib 50 mg/day in repeated cycles of a 4-week on/2-week off schedule or IFN-α 9 million units subcutaneously thrice weekly. Plasma samples collected from a subset of 63 patients on days 1 and 28 of cycles 1-4 and at end of treatment were analyzed by ELISA., Results: Baseline characteristics of biomarker-evaluated patients in sunitinib (N = 33) and IFN-α (N = 30) arms were comparable to their respective intent-to-treat populations. By univariate Cox regression analysis, low baseline soluble protein levels were associated with lower risk of progression/death (all P < 0.05): in both treatment arms, baseline VEGF-A and IL-8 were associated with overall survival (OS) and baseline VEGF-C with progression-free survival (PFS); in the sunitinib arm, baseline VEGF-A was associated with PFS and baseline sVEGFR-3 with PFS and OS; in the IFN-α arm, baseline IL-8 was associated with PFS. In multivariate analysis, baseline sVEGFR-3 and IL-8 remained independent predictors of OS in the sunitinib arm, while no independent predictors of outcome remained in the IFN-α arm. Pharmacodynamic changes were not associated with PFS or OS for any plasma protein investigated., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that, in mRCC, baseline VEGF-A and IL-8 may have prognostic value, while baseline sVEGFR-3 may predict sunitinib efficacy.

Predictive markers of response to therapy are increasingly important in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) due to the proliferation of treatment options in recent years. Different types of potential predictive markers may include clinical, toxicity-based, serum, tissue, and radiologic biomarkers. Clinical factors are commonly used in overall prognostic models of RCC but have limited utility in predicting response to therapy. Correlation between development of particular toxicities and response to therapy has been noted, such as the correlation between hypertension and response to angiogenesis-targeted therapy. Serum and tissue biomarkers will be covered in detail elsewhere, but factors such as serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and circulating cytokines show promise in this regard. Finally, baseline or early treatment radiology studies may have predictive ability for longer term efficacy, with most studies to date focusing on functional imaging modalities such as positron emission tomography (PET) scans, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and DCE ultrasound (US). The ultimate goal of developing predictive biomarkers is to enable rational and personalized treatment strategies for patients with advanced RCC., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In a phase II study of axitinib for cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma, median overall survival (OS) was 29.9 months (95% CI, 20.3 to not estimable months)., Patients and Methods: Long-term survival data were collected retrospectively from 52 patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received axitinib in a completed phase II study (protocol 1), 11 of whom enrolled in a continuing access protocol (protocol 2), for the current observational study (protocol 3). In a post hoc analysis, the patients were grouped into quartiles based on cycle 1 day 1, 1- to 2-hour post-dose axitinib plasma levels to explore the impact of drug exposure on efficacy., Results: The 5-year survival rate was 20.6% (95% CI, 10.9%-32.4%), with a median follow-up of 5.9 years. Frequent all-grade adverse events were fatigue (n = 38; 73.1%), diarrhea (n = 34; 65.4%), hypertension (n = 33; 63.5%), and nausea (n = 33; 63.5%). Quartile 3 patients (axitinib level, 45.2-56.4 ng/mL; n = 12) had the best clinical outcome: objective response rate 82%, median progression-free survival (PFS) 28.3 months, and median OS that was not reached after 5 years., Conclusions: Axitinib was well tolerated and provided an estimated 5-year survival rate of 20.6% for cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Exploratory analyses showed numerically higher objective response rate and longer OS and PFS in patients who achieved post-first-dose axitinib plasma concentrations within a specific range., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results., Methods: Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392., Findings: Median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI 16.7-23.4) with axitinib and 19.2 months (17.5-22.3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.969, 95% CI 0.800-1.174; one-sided p=0.3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI 6.7-9.2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4.7-6.5) with sorafenib (HR 0.656, 95% CI 0.552-0.779; one-sided p<0.0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 [17%]), diarrhoea (40 [11%]), and fatigue (37 [10%]) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand-foot syndrome (61 [17%]), hypertension (43 [12%]), and diarrhoea (27 [8%]) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20.7 months (95% CI 18.4-24.6) versus 12.9 months (10.1-20.4) in the axitinib group (p=0.0116), and 20.2 months (17.1-32.0) versus 14.8 months (12.0-17.7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0.0020)., Interpretation: Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma., Funding: Pfizer Inc., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The clinical activity of allosteric inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) may be limited by upstream activation of phosphatidylinositol 3 (PI3)-kinase/Akt resulting from mTOR1 inhibition. On the basis of this rationale, 2 independent phase 2 trials (Perifosine 228 and 231) were conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel Akt inhibitor perifosine in patients with advanced RCC who had failed on previous vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy., Methods: In the Perifosine 228 trial, 24 patients with advanced RCC received oral perifosine (100 mg daily). Perifosine 231 enrolled 2 groups that received daily oral perifosine (100 mg daily): Group A comprised 32 patients who had received no prior mTOR inhibitor, and Group B comprised 18 patients who had received 1 prior mTOR inhibitor., Results: In the Perifosine 228 trial, 1 patient achieved a partial response (objective response rate, 4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7%-20%), and 11 patients (46%) had stable disease as their best response. The median progression-free survival was 14.2 weeks (95% confidence interval, 7.7-21.6 weeks). In the Perifosine 231 trial, 5 patients achieved a partial response (objective response rate, 10%; 95% confidence interval, 4.5%-22.2%) and 16 patients (32%) had stable disease as their best response. The median progression-free survival was 14 weeks (95% confidence interval, 12.9, 20.7 weeks). Overall, perifosine was well tolerated, and there were very few grade 3 and 4 events. The most common toxicities included nausea, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and fatigue., Conclusions: Although perifosine demonstrated activity in patients with advanced RCC after failure on VEGF-targeted therapy, its activity was not superior to currently available second-line agents. Nonetheless, perifosine may be worthy of further study in RCC in combination with other currently available therapies., (Copyright © 2012 American Cancer Society.)

Therapeutic inhibition of pathways involved in angiogenesis has become the standard of care in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Most currently available antiangiogenic agents inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. Although these drugs have produced exciting benefits, some tumors do not respond to these agents. In addition most if not all tumors that initially respond will eventually develop resistance. Tumor escape from antiangiogenic therapy may include various signaling pathways that are involved in angiogenesis, including the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling pathway. Emerging preclinical data suggest that FGF and VEGF act distinctly and synergistically to promote tumor vascularization. The current review discusses the role of FGF signaling in resistance to anti-VEGF therapies and outlines potential therapeutic implications., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer., Methods: We included patients coming from 175 sites (hospitals and outpatient clinics) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, or cytokines. Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg, twice daily, were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2. Participants were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and was assessed by a masked, independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392., Findings: A total of 723 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive axitinib (n=361) or sorafenib (n=362). The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·665; 95% CI 0·544-0·812; one-sided p<0·0001). Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 (4%) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 (8%) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, hypertension, and fatigue in the axitinib arm, and diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia, and alopecia in the sorafenib arm., Interpretation: Axitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib. Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma., Funding: Pfizer Inc., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of linifanib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who were previously treated with sunitinib., Materials and Methods: This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial of oral linifanib 0.25 mg/kg/day enrolled patients who had prior nephrectomy and adequate organ function. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR) per response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) by central imaging. Secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP). Safety was also assessed., Results: Fifty-three patients, median age 61 years (range 40-80) were enrolled (August 2007 to October 2008) across 12 North-American centres. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-4); 43 patients (81%) had clear-cell histology. ORR was 13.2%, median PFS was 5.4 months (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 3.6, 6.0) and TTP was the same; median OS was 14.5 months (95% CI: 10.8, 24.1). The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhoea (74%), fatigue (74%) and hypertension (66%), and the most common treatment-related Grade 3/4 AE was hypertension (40%)., Conclusions: Linifanib demonstrated clinically meaningful activity in patients with advanced RCC after sunitinib failure. At 0.25 mg/kg/day, significant dose modifications were required. An alternative, fixed-dosing strategy is being evaluated in other trials., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The outcome of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma has been substantially improved with administration of the currently available molecularly targeted therapies. However, proper selection of therapy and management of toxicities remain challenging. NCCN convened a multidisciplinary task force panel to address the clinical issues associated with these therapies in attempt to help practicing oncologists optimize patient outcomes. This report summarizes the background data presented at the task force meeting and the ensuing discussion.

Background: Sunitinib was a standard initial therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Given the fact that many patients progressed through many available therapies and antitumor activity had been demonstrated with sequential vascular endothelial growth factor-targeting approaches, a retrospective review was performed of the experience of rechallenge with sunitinib in sunitinib-refractory mRCC., Methods: mRCC patients who received sunitinib therapy after disease progression on prior sunitinib and other therapy were retrospectively identified. Patient characteristics, toxicity, clinical outcome, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) objective response rate, and progression-free survival (PFS) were recorded., Results: Twenty-three mRCC patients who were rechallenged with sunitinib were identified. Upon rechallenge, 5 patients (22%) achieved an objective partial response. The median PFS with initial treatment was 13.7 months and 7.2 months with rechallenge. Patients with >6-month interval between sunitinib treatments had a longer PFS with rechallenge than patients who started the rechallenge within 6 months (median PFS, 16.5 vs 6.0 months; P=.03). There was no significant difference in outcome to sunitinib rechallenge based on number or mechanism of intervening treatments. Substantial new toxicity or significantly increased severity of prior toxicity was not seen during rechallenge in this cohort., Conclusions: Sunitinib rechallenge had potential benefits and was tolerated in select metastatic RCC patients. Additional prospective investigation was warranted., (Copyright © 2010 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: A randomized, phase III trial demonstrated superiority of sunitinib over interferon alfa (IFN-alpha) in progression-free survival (primary end point) as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Final survival analyses and updated results are reported., Patients and Methods: Seven hundred fifty treatment-naïve patients with metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on a 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off dosing schedule or to IFN-alpha 9 MU subcutaneously thrice weekly. Overall survival was compared by two-sided log-rank and Wilcoxon tests. Progression-free survival, response, and safety end points were assessed with updated follow-up., Results: Median overall survival was greater in the sunitinib group than in the IFN-alpha group (26.4 v 21.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.821; 95% CI, 0.673 to 1.001; P = .051) per the primary analysis of unstratified log-rank test (P = .013 per unstratified Wilcoxon test). By stratified log-rank test, the HR was 0.818 (95% CI, 0.669 to 0.999; P = .049). Within the IFN-alpha group, 33% of patients received sunitinib, and 32% received other vascular endothelial growth factor-signaling inhibitors after discontinuation from the trial. Median progression-free survival was 11 months for sunitinib compared with 5 months for IFN-alpha (P < .001). Objective response rate was 47% for sunitinib compared with 12% for IFN-alpha (P < .001). The most commonly reported sunitinib-related grade 3 adverse events included hypertension (12%), fatigue (11%), diarrhea (9%), and hand-foot syndrome (9%)., Conclusion: Sunitinib demonstrates longer overall survival compared with IFN-alpha plus improvement in response and progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic RCC. The overall survival highlights an improved prognosis in patients with RCC in the era of targeted therapy.

Systemic treatment options for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have expanded considerably with the development of targeted therapies. Clear cell RCC commonly features mutation or inactivation of the von Hippel-Lindau gene and resultant overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The first drug to validate VEGF as a target in the treatment of clear cell RCC was the monoclonal antibody bevacizumab. Since then, anti-VEGF receptor therapy with multitargeted kinase inhibitors also has shown substantial efficacy. Sunitinib is now a standard first-line therapy for advanced disease and sorafenib is among the second-line treatment options. Other kinase inhibitors are in development. Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a second validated therapeutic target as the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus has been shown to prolong survival in first-line treatment of poor prognosis RCC of all histologies. Everolimus is an oral mTOR inhibitor and has been shown to prolong progression-free survival when used in second-line treatment. Non-clear cell and sarcomatoid RCC are both underrepresented in completed trials but are the subject of active research. Ongoing and planned studies will also evaluate the use of combinations of targeted agents, a strategy that is not advisable outside of clinical trials. Finally, postnephrectomy adjuvant treatment with targeted agents is not yet standard but is under investigation in phase III trials.

Background: In a randomized, phase 3 trial, sunitinib demonstrated superior efficacy over interferon-alfa as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). On the basis of outcome data from that trial, the authors developed a nomogram for predicting the probability of 12-month progression-free survival for patients who received sunitinib therapy., Methods: Three-hundred seventy-five patients who received sunitinib in the phase 3 trial were the subject of the current analysis. Nomogram pretreatment predictor variables included corrected serum calcium levels, the number of metastatic sites, hemoglobin levels, prior nephrectomy, the presence of lung and liver metastases, thrombocytosis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, time from diagnosis to treatment, and serum levels of alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was the predicted outcome endpoint. Internal validation of the nomogram consisted of quantification of the discrimination with the concordance index and assessment of calibration., Results: One-hundred seventy-four of 375 patients (46%) who received sunitinib achieved an objective response, and the median progression-free survival was 10.8 months (95% confidence interval, 10.6-12.6 months). A nomogram for predicting the probability of 12-month progression-free survival for patients who received sunitinib therapy was constructed on the basis of a Cox regression model from 11 parameters that were determined before treatment. The concordance index was 0.633., Conclusions: A nomogram was developed from pretreatment clinical features to predict the probability of achieving 12-month progression-free survival with sunitinib therapy for metastatic clear-cell RCC. The authors concluded that independent validation of the nomogram and additional studies to identify tumor-specific prognostic factors are warranted.