Search

Background: Even though cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) was once the standard of care for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), its role in treatment has not been well analyzed or defined in the era of immunotherapy (IO)., Materials and Methods: This study analyzed pathological outcomes in patients with advanced or metastatic RCC who received IO prior to CN. This was a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with advanced or metastatic RCC. Patients were required to receive IO monotherapy or combination therapy prior to radical or partial CN. The primary endpoint assessed surgical pathologic outcomes, including American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging and frequency of downstaging, at the time of surgery. Pathologic outcomes were correlated to clinical variables using a Wald-chi squared test from Cox regression in a multi-variable analysis. Secondary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR) defined by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 and progression-free survival (PFS), which were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with reported 95% CIs., Results: Fifty-two patients from 9 sites were included. Most patients were male (65%), 81% had clear cell histology, 11% had sarcomatoid differentiation. Overall, 44% of patients experienced pathologic downstaging, and 13% had a complete pathologic response. The ORR immediately prior to nephrectomy was stable disease in 29% of patients, partial response in 63%, progressive disease in 4%, and 4% unknown. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 25.3 months and median PFS was 3.5 years (95% CI, 2.1-4.9)., Conclusions: IO-based interventions prior to CN in patients with advanced or metastatic RCC demonstrates efficacy, with a small fraction of patients showing a complete response. Additional prospective studies are warranted to investigate the role of CN in the modern IO-era., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent an appealing treatment for patients with advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) and a poor performance status (PS). However, the benefit of ICIs for patients with a poor PS remains unknown. It was hypothesized that a poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS (≥2 vs 0-1) would correlate with shorter overall survival (OS) in patients receiving ICIs., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, clinicopathologic, treatment, and outcome data were collected for patients with aUC who were treated with ICIs at 18 institutions (2013-2019). The overall response rate (ORR) and OS were compared for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 to 1 and patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 2 at ICI initiation. The association between a new ICI in the last 30 and 90 days of life (DOL) and death location was also tested., Results: Of the 519 patients treated with ICIs, 395 and 384 were included in OS and ORR analyses, respectively, with 26% and 24% having a PS ≥ 2. OS was higher in those with a PS of 0 to 1 than those with a PS ≥ 2 who were treated in the first line (median, 15.2 vs 7.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .01) but not in subsequent lines (median, 9.8 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.78; P = .27). ORRs were similar for patients with a PS of 0 to 1 and patients with a PS ≥ 2 in both lines. Of the 288 patients who died, 10% and 32% started ICIs in the last 30 and 90 DOL, respectively. ICI initiation in the last 30 DOL was associated with increased odds of death in a hospital (odds ratio, 2.89; P = .04)., Conclusions: Despite comparable ORRs, ICIs may not overcome the negative prognostic role of a poor PS, particularly in the first-line setting, and the initiation of ICIs in the last 30 DOL was associated with hospital death location., (© 2019 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The outcome of patients who progress on front-line immune-based combination regimens (IC) including immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and receive subsequent systemic therapy is unknown., Methods: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with clear-cell mRCC who progressed on one of seven clinical trials investigating an IC and received ≥1 line of subsequent VEGFR TKI therapy., Results: Thirty-three patients [median age 57 (37-77), 85% male, 73% ECOG 0] were included. For evaluable patients (N = 28), the best response to first subsequent therapy was 29% partial response, 54% stable disease, and 18% progressive disease. The median PFS (mPFS) for first subsequent therapy was 6.4 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.4); no difference in mPFS by prior type of IC (VEGFR TKI-CPI vs. CPI-CPI) was noted (p = 0.310). Significant AEs were observed in 30% of patients, more frequently transaminitis (9%)., Conclusions: VEGFR TKIs have clinical activity in mRCC refractory to IC therapy, possibly impacted by the mechanism of prior combination therapy.

BackgroundEarly progression on first-line (1L) platinum-based therapy or between therapy lines may be a surrogate of more aggressive disease and poor outcomes in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), but its prognostic role regarding immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) response and survival is unclear. We hypothesized that shorter time until start of second-line (2L) ICI would be associated with worse outcomes in aUC.Patients and methodsWe performed a retrospective multi-institution cohort study in patients with aUC treated with 1L platinum-based chemotherapy, who received 2L ICI. Patients receiving switch maintenance ICI were excluded. We defined time to 2L ICI therapy as the time between the start of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy to the start of 2L ICI and categorized patients a priori into 1 of 3 groups: less than 3 months versus 3-6 months versus more than 6 months. We calculated overall response rate (ORR) with 2L ICI, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the start of 2L ICI. ORR was compared among the 3 groups using multivariable logistic regression, and PFS, OS using cox regression. Multivariable models were adjusted for known prognostic factors.ResultsWe included 215, 215, and 219 patients in the ORR, PFS, and OS analyses, respectively, after exclusions. ORR difference did not reach statistical significance between patients with less than 3 months versus 3-6 months versus more than 6 months to 2L ICI. However, PFS (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.02-2.63) and OS (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.10-2.84) was shorter among those with time to 2L ICI less than 3 months compared to those who initiated 2L ICI more than 6 months.ConclusionAmong patients with aUC treated with 2L ICI, time to 2L ICI less than 3 months was associated with lower, but not significantly different ORR, but shorter PFS and OS compared to 2L ICI more than 6 months. This highlights potential cross resistance mechanisms between ICI and platinum-based chemotherapy.

ObjectivesTo compare clinical outcomes with programmed-death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who have vs have not undergone radical surgery (RS) or radiation therapy (RT) prior to developing metastatic disease.Patients and methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs across 25 institutions. We compared outcomes (observed response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]) between patients with vs without prior RS, and by type of prior locoregional treatment (RS vs RT vs no locoregional treatment). Patients with de novo advanced disease were excluded. Analysis was stratified by treatment line (first-line and second-line or greater [second-plus line]). Logistic regression was used to compare ORR, while Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used for PFS and OS. Multivariable models were adjusted for known prognostic factors.ResultsWe included 562 patients (first-line: 342 and second-plus line: 220). There was no difference in outcomes based on prior locoregional treatment among those treated with first-line ICIs. In the second-plus-line setting, prior RS was associated with higher ORR (adjusted odds ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.19-5.74]), longer OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.88) and PFS (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.89) vs no prior RS. This association remained significant when type of prior locoregional treatment (RS and RT) was modelled separately.ConclusionPrior RS before developing advanced disease was associated with better outcomes in patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the second-plus-line but not in the first-line setting. While further validation is needed, our findings could have implications for prognostic estimates in clinical discussions and benchmarking for clinical trials. Limitations include the study's retrospective nature, lack of randomization, and possible selection and confounding biases.

BackgroundSites of metastasis have prognostic significance in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), but more information is needed regarding outcomes based on metastatic sites in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We hypothesized that presence of liver/bone metastases would be associated with worse outcomes with ICI.MethodsWe identified a retrospective cohort of patients with aUC across 26 institutions, collecting demographics, clinicopathological, treatment, and outcomes information. Outcomes were compared with logistic (observed response rate; ORR) and Cox (progression-free survival; PFS, overall survival; OS) regression between patients with/without metastasis beyond lymph nodes (LN) and those with/without bone/liver/lung metastasis. Analysis was stratified by 1st or 2nd+ line.ResultsWe identified 917 ICI-treated patients: in the 1st line, bone/liver metastases were associated with shorter PFS (Hazard ratio; HR: 1.65 and 2.54), OS (HR: 1.60 and 2.35, respectively) and lower ORR (OR: 0.48 and 0.31). In the 2nd+ line, bone/liver metastases were associated with shorter PFS (HR: 1.71 and 1.62), OS (HR: 1.76 and 1.56) and, for bone-only metastases, lower ORR (OR: 0.29). In the 1st line, LN-confined metastasis was associated with longer PFS (HR: 0.53), OS (HR:0.49) and higher ORR (OR: 2.97). In the 2nd+ line, LN-confined metastasis was associated with longer PFS (HR: 0.47), OS (HR: 0.54), and higher ORR (OR: 2.79); all associations were significant.ConclusionBone and/or liver metastases were associated with worse, while LN-confined metastases were associated with better outcomes in patients with aUC receiving ICI. These findings in a large population treated outside clinical trials corroborate data from trial subset analyses.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) improve overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC), but response rates can be modest. We compared outcomes between patients with and without prior intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), who received ICI for aUC, hypothesizing that prior intravesical BCG would be associated with worse outcomes.Patients and methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study across 25 institutions in US and Europe. We compared observed response rate (ORR) using logistic regression; progression-free survival (PFS) and OS using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards. Analyses were stratified by treatment line (first line/salvage) and included multivariable models adjusting for known prognostic factors.ResultsA total of 1026 patients with aUC were identified; 614, 617, and 638 were included in ORR, OS, PFS analyses, respectively. Overall, 150 pts had history of prior intravesical BCG treatment. ORR to ICI was similar between those with and without prior intravesical BCG exposure in both first line and salvage settings (adjusted odds radios 0.55 [P= .08] and 1.65 [P= .12]). OS (adjusted hazard ratios 1.05 [P= .79] and 1.13 [P= .49]) and PFS (adjusted hazard ratios 1.12 [P= .55] and 0.87 [P= .39]) were similar between those with and without intravesical BCG exposure in first line and salvage settings.ConclusionPrior intravesical BCG was not associated with differences in response and survival in patients with aUC treated with ICI. Limitations include retrospective nature, lack of randomization, presence of selection and confounding biases. This study provides important preliminary data that prior intravesical BCG exposure may not impact ICI efficacy in aUC.

BackgroundWhile immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved in the first-line (1L) setting for cisplatin-unfit patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-high tumors or for platinum (cisplatin/carboplatin)-unfit patients, response rates remain modest and outcomes vary with no clinically useful biomarkers (except for PD-L1).ObjectiveWe aimed to develop a prognostic model for overall survival (OS) in patients receiving 1L ICIs for advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) in a multicenter cohort study.Design, setting, and participantsPatients treated with 1L ICIs for aUC across 24 institutions and five countries (in the USA and Europe) outside clinical trials were included in this study.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisWe used a stepwise, hypothesis-driven approach using clinician-selected covariates to develop a new risk score for patients receiving ICIs in the 1L setting. Demographics, clinicopathologic data, treatment patterns, and OS were collected uniformly. Univariate Cox regression was performed on 18 covariates hypothesized to be associated with OS based on published data. Variables were retained for multivariate analysis (MVA) if they correlated with OS (p < 0.2) and were included in the final model if p < 0.05 on MVA. Retained covariates were assigned points based on the beta coefficient to create a risk score. Stratified median OS and C-statistic were calculated.Results and limitationsAmong 984 patients, 357 with a mean age of 71 yr were included in the analysis, 27% were female, 68% had pure UC, and 13% had upper tract UC. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, albumin 5, and liver metastases were significant prognostic factors on MVA and were included in the risk score. C index for new 1L risk score was 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.71). Limitations include retrospective nature and lack of external validation.ConclusionsWe developed a new 1L ICI risk score for OS based on data from patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the USA and Europe outside of clinical trials. The score components highlight readily available factors related to tumor biology and treatment response. External validation is being pursued.Patient summaryWith multiple new treatments under development and approved for advanced urothelial carcinoma, it can be difficult to identify the best treatment sequence for each patient. The risk score may help inform treatment discussions and estimate outcomes in patients treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors, while it can also impact clinical trial design and endpoints. TAKE  HOME MESSAGE: A new risk score was developed for advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors. The score assigned Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, albumin 5, and liver metastases each one point, with a higher score being associated with worse overall survival.

PURPOSE: Urinary tract cancer can be pure urothelial carcinoma, pure nonurothelial carcinoma or variant urothelial carcinoma (defined here as mixed urothelial carcinoma). Little is known regarding outcomes for patients with variant urothelial carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We hypothesized that variant urothelial carcinoma does not compromise immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study across 18 institutions. Demographic, clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data were collected for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were divided into pure vs variant urothelial carcinoma subgroups, with variant urothelial carcinoma further divided by type of variant (ie squamous, neuroendocrine etc). We compared overall response rate using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and progression-free survival and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Overall 519 patients were identified, with 395, 406 and 403 included in overall response rate, overall survival and progression-free survival analyses, respectively. Overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors between patients with pure vs variant urothelial carcinoma was comparable (28% vs 29%, p=0.90) without significant differences for individual subtypes vs pure urothelial carcinoma. Median overall survival for patients with pure urothelial carcinoma was 11.0 months vs 10.1 months for variant urothelial carcinoma (p=0.60), but only 4.6 months for patients with neuroendocrine features (9 patients, HR 2.75, 95% CI 1.40-5.40 vs pure urothelial carcinoma, p=0.003). Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months for pure vs 5.2 months for variant urothelial carcinoma (p=0.43) and 3.7 months for neuroendocrine features (HR 1.87, 95% CI 0.92-3.79 vs pure urothelial carcinoma, p=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors was comparable across histological types. However, overall survival was worse for patients with tumors containing neuroendocrine features. Variant urothelial carcinoma should not exclude patients from receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Primary systemic therapy in the management of advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) has gained increasing traction. We examined immunotherapy (IO) followed by cytoreductive nephrectomy (CRN) in 56 patients with mostly favorable/intermediate IMDC risk. IO significantly reduced tumor/thrombus size, complexity, and clinical/pathologic stage. A quality CRN (negative margins and without complications) following IO demonstrated improved 2-year progression-free survival. Background: To evaluate effect and outcomes of combination primary immunotherapy (IO) and nephrectomy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients with advanced/metastatic RCC who received IO followed by nephrectomy. Primary outcome was Bifecta (negative surgical margins and no 30-day surgical complications). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) following surgery, reduction in tumor/thrombus size, RENAL score, and clinical/pathologic downstaging. Cox regression multivariable analysis was conducted for predictors of Bifecta and PFS. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed PFS, comparing Bifecta and non-Bifecta groups. Results: A total of 56 patients were analyzed (median age 63 years; median follow-up 22.5 months). A total of 40 (71.4%) patients were intermediate IMDC risk. Patients were treated with immunotherapy for median duration of 8.1 months. Immunotherapy resulted in reductions in tumor size (P < .001), thrombus size (P = .02), and RENAL score (P < .001); 38 (67.9%) patients were clinically downstaged on imaging (P < .001) and 25 (44.6%) patients were pathologically downstaged following surgery (P < .001). Bifecta was achieved in 38 (67.9%) patients. Predictors for bifecta achievement included decreasing tumor size (HR 1.08, P = .043) and pathological downstaging (HR 2.13, P = .047). Bifecta (HR 5.65, P = .009), pathologic downstaging (HR 5.15, P = .02), and increasing reduction in tumor size (HR 1.2, P = .007) were associated with improved PFS. Bifecta patients demonstrated improved 2-year PFS (84% vs. 71%, P = .019). Conclusions: Primary immunotherapy reduced tumor/thrombus size and complexity. Pathologically downstaged patients were more likely to achieve bifecta, and these patients displayed improved 2-year PFS. Our study supports further inquiry in the use of CRN following primary immunotherapy for advanced renal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with metastatic prostate cancer, especially in the castrate-resistant setting, have a poor prognosis. Many agents have been approved for metastatic prostate cancer, such as androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, taxane-based chemotherapy, radiopharmaceuticals, and immunotherapy. However, prostate cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths in nonsmoking men. Fortunately, many more novel agents are under investigation. We provide an overview of the broad group of novel therapies for metastatic prostate cancer, with an emphasis on active and recruiting clinical trials that have been recently published and/or presented at national or international meetings. The future for patients with metastatic prostate cancer is promising, with further development of novel therapies such as radiopharmaceuticals. Based on a growing understanding of prostate cancer biology, novel agents are being designed to overcome resistance to approved therapies. There are many trials using novel agents either as monotherapy or in combination with already approved agents with potential to further improve outcomes for men with advanced prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The therapeutic landscape of several genitourinary malignancies has been revolutionized by the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); however, the utility of immunotherapies in prostate cancer has been limited, partly due to the immunologically "cold" tumor terrain of prostate cancer. As of today, pembrolizumab is the only immune checkpoint inhibitor approved for the treatment of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in a select group of patients with high microsatellite instability (MSI-H), deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), or high tumor mutational burden (TMB). Looking ahead, several combinatorial approaches with ICIs involving radioligands, radiotherapy, PARP inhibitors, interleukin inhibitors, and cancer vaccines are exploring a potential synergistic effect. Furthermore, B7-H3 is an alternative checkpoint that may hold promise in adding to the treatment landscape of mCRPC. This review aims to summarize previous monotherapy and combination therapy trials of ICIs as well as novel immunotherapy combination therapeutic strategies and treatment targets in mCRPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Cancer treatments have significantly changed with the introduction of immunotherapy. Recently, the development of new agents that harness the redirection of T-cells against cancer is rapidly emerging in multiple tumor types. Since bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) therapies have demonstrated clinical benefit in hematologic malignancies, their application to solid tumors has been an active area of investigation. However, in prostate cancer, due to the heterogeneous and immune-suppressive tumor microenvironment, the development of immunotherapy strategies remains a therapeutic challenge. In this review, we summarize the current development of BiTE therapies in solid tumors with a particular focus on clinical trials in advanced prostate cancer. Over the past decade, immunotherapy has demonstrated an impressive improvement in treatment outcomes for multiple cancers. Following the landmark approvals for use of immune checkpoint inhibitors, new challenges emerged in various clinical settings. Not all tumor types harbor immunogenic characteristics capable of triggering responses. Similarly, many tumors' immune microenvironment allows them to become evasive, leading to resistance and, thus, limiting the durability of responses. To overcome this limitation, new T-cell redirecting strategies such as bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) have become attractive and promising immunotherapies. Our review provides a comprehensive perspective of the current evidence of BiTE therapies in solid tumors. Considering that immunotherapy has shown modest results in advanced prostate cancer to date, we review the biologic rationale and promising results of BiTE therapy in this clinical setting and discuss potential tumor-associated antigens that may be integrated into BiTE construct designs. Our review also aims to evaluate the advances of BiTE therapies in prostate cancer, illustrate the major obstacles and underlying limitations, and discuss directions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become one of the mainstays of systemic therapy for advancedurothelial carcinoma (aUC). Increasingly ICIs are also being utilized earlier in the course of UC treatment. Limited data are available regarding ICI treatment efficacy in aUC patients who have progressed on prior ICI regimens. This case series aims to address this knowledge gap. Patients and Methods: We identified all aUC patients treated with ICI or combination following prior progression on another ICI regimen at two academic institutions. Patient demographic, clinicopathologic and treatment data were retrospectively collected from chart review at each site. Best response to ICI treatment was defined by investigator at each site. Results: Among 7 patients with aUC who received ICI treatment following prior progression on a different ICI regimen, radiographic response to the second ICI regimen was observed in only 1 patient (14%) treated with combination of pembrolizumab/enfortumab vedotin. Conclusion: Efficacy of ICI treatment in patients who previously progressed on another ICI regimen appears limited. These observations should be validated in larger cohorts, as it is anticipated that this clinical scenario will become more common in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficacy of first-line PD1/L1 inhibitors for platinum-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma off-trial appeared comparable to those reported in trials for unselected cisplatin-ineligible patients, whereas grade ≥ 3 treatment-related toxicities appeared more common. Further study is required based on tumor PDL1 status and other biomarkers. Background: PD1/L1 inhibitors are approved by FDA as first-line therapy for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who are cisplatin-ineligible with high tumor PD-L1 expression or are platinum-ineligible regardless of PD-L1 expression. However, the outcomes when employing PD1/L1 inhibitors for platinum-ineligible patients are unclear. This retrospective analysis evaluates the clinical outcomes of first-line PD1/L1 inhibitors in patients with aUC deemed to be platinum-ineligible. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from 8 academic institutions. The following criteria were used to define platinum ineligibility: creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 30 mL/min; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 3; CrCl 30 to 59 mL/min and ECOG PS 2; elderly and/or comorbidities. Patient characteristics, responses and treatment-related toxicities were identified. Sur vival cur ves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox regression analysis was conducted to explore the association of baseline variables with response and survival. Results: A total of 79 platinum-ineligible patients with aUC were eligible. Patients were treated with atezolizumab (51.9%), pembrolizumab (35.5%), nivolumab (8.9%), or durvalumab (3.8%). The objective response rate was 27.9%. The median overall survival was 45 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI], 32-80), and the median treatment failure-free survival was 16 weeks (95% CI, 9-18). Treatment-related toxicity of any grade and grade ≥ 3 was seen in 41.8% and 31.7% of patients, respectively. Anemia and liver metastasis were associated with worse survival. Conclusion: The efficacy of first-line PD1/L1 inhibitors for platinum-ineligible patients with aUC in the real world appears comparable to those reported in trials of unselected cisplatin-ineligible patients, whereas grade = 3 toxicities appear more common. Further validation is required including data based on PD-L1 status and other biomarkers. Platinum-ineligible patients with aUC warrant evaluation of novel, safe, and effective agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune checkpoint inhibition has been approved for front-line treatment of metastatic bladder cancer in patients who are cisplatin-ineligible and demonstrate programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positivity. This approval followed the positive results of IMvigor210 and KEYNOTE-052 studies. Immunotherapy has also demonstrated efficacy as maintenance therapy patients for patients who initially respond to platinum-based chemotherapy. Other studies have investigated combinations of immunotherapy with chemotherapy, combinations between immunotherapies, and immunotherapy with novel agents. Although these combinations have demonstrated promise, further investigation is necessary to optimize the patients who would benefit from these approaches. Biomarkers beyond PD-L1 scoring can help predict response and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibition and will be integral to future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has advanced significantly with the approval of combination regimens containing an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) for patients with treatment-naïve disease. Little information is available regarding the activity of single-agent ICIs for patients with previously untreated mRCC not enrolled in clinical trials. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter cohort included consecutive treatment-naïve mRCC patients from six institutions in the United States who received ≥1 dose of an ICI outside a clinical trial, between June 2017 and October 2019. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze outcomes including objective best response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and tolerability. Results: The final analysis included 27 patients, 70% men, median age 64 years (range 42–92), 67% Caucasian, and 33% with ECOG 2 or 3 at baseline. Most patients had intermediate risk (85%, IMDC) with clear cell (56%), papillary (26%), unclassified (11%), chromophobe (4%), and translocation (4%) RCC. All patients had evidence of metastatic disease involving the lungs (59%), lymph node (41%), CNS (19%), liver (11%), adrenal gland (11%), and bone (11%). The median time on ICI was 3.1 (0.1–26.8) months, and the median PFS was 6.3 (95% CI, 0–18.6) months. Among the 21 patients with an evaluable response, the best ORR was 33%, including two complete responses and five partial responses. The ORR was 29% (n = 1 complete response, n = 5 partial response) in clear cell and 5% (n = 1 complete response) in non-clear cell RCC. Adverse events (AEs) of any cause were reported in 37% and included fatigue (11%), dermatitis (11%), diarrhea (7%), and shortness of breath (7%). Significant AEs (30%) included shortness of breath (7%), acute kidney injury (4%), dermatitis (4%), Clostridium difficile infection (4%), cerebrovascular accident (4%), and fatigue (7%). Three patients discontinued therapy due to grade 4 AEs. Conclusions: In this multi-institutional case series, single-agent ICI demonstrated objective responses and was well tolerated in a heterogeneous treatment-naïve mRCC cohort. ICI monotherapy is not the standard of care for patients with mRCC, and further investigation is necessary to explore predictive biomarkers for optimal treatment selection in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The first-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) includes immune oncology (IO) based combination therapy. The current standard includes a PD-1 inhibitor plus either an anti-CTLA-4 inhibitor (IO/IO) or an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGF TKI) (IO/TKI). Currently, there is no evidence to guide a physician's choice between an IO/IO versus an IO/TKI combination. The phase III IMmotion 151 trial performed RNA-seq from 823 ccRCC tumors and established seven biologically distinct gene expression clusters of ccRCC (Motzer and Rini et al., Cancer Cell 2020). The seven clusters showed differential responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor and may serve as a predictive biomarker to select clusters to assign patients with mccRCC to either an IO/IO (ipilimumab/ nivolumab) or an IO/TKI (nivolumab/cabozantinib) regimen. Methods Patients diagnosed with mccRCC without prior systemic therapy (including in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting) and at least one measurable lesion as defined by RECIST 1.1 are eligible for enrollment. RNA-seq will be performed on metastatic tumor specimens and used to assign tumor clusters. Patients with cluster 1/2 tumors will be assigned to the nivolumab/cabozantinib arm. Patients with cluster 4/5 tumors will be assigned to the ipilimumab/nivolumab arm. Cluster 3/6/7 will be excluded. The primary endpoint is overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. Key secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, depth of response >80%, and rate of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The hypothesis is that use of tumor clusters to assign front-line therapy to either nivolumab/cabozantinib or ipilimumab/nivolumab will lead to a 20% greater ORR compared to unselected historical controls in CheckMate 9ER (ORR 55%) or CheckMate 214 (ORR: 40%). This trial adopts Simon's MiniMax two-stage design (power: 80%, one-sided alpha: 0.1). For the nivolumab/cabozantinib arm, stage I will enroll 12 eligible patients. If there are 7 or more responders in the first 12 patients, stage II will enroll an additional 14 patients (n=26). For the ipilimumab/ nivolumab arm, stage I will enroll 16 eligible patients. If there are 7 or more responders in the first 16, stage II will enroll an additional 12 patients (n=28). The primary endpoint will be met if there are 15 or more responders (ORR>60%). This trial is open and enrolling with 12 patients on study at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and additional sites to open including UT Southwestern, City of Hope, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, and Cleveland Clinic. This trial is funded by the Department of Defense Kidney Cancer Research Program Clinical Trial Award (W81XWH-22-1-1033) (NCT05361720). CDMRP DOD Funding: yes [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nivolumab is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) refractory to prior antiangiogenic therapy. The clinical activity of nivolumab in patients with non-clear cell RCC subtypes remains unknown as these patients were excluded from the original nivolumab trials. Methods: Patients from 6 centers in the United States who received at least one dose of nivolumab for non-clear cell mRCC between 12/2015 and 06/2017 were identified. A retrospective analysis including patient characteristics, objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was undertaken. Results: Forty-one patients were identified. Median age was 58 years (33-82), 71% were male, and majority had ECOG PS 0 (40%) or 1 (47%). Histology included 16 papillary, 14 unclassified, 5 chromophobe, 4 collecting duct, 1 Xp11 translocation and 1 MTSCC (mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma). Among 35 patients who were evaluable for best response, 7 (20%) had PR and 10 (29%) had SD. Responses were observed in unclassified, papillary and collecting duct subtypes. In the entire cohort, median follow-up was 8.5 months and median treatment duration was 3.0 months. Median PFS was 3.5 months and median OS was not reached. Among responders, median time to best response was 5.1 months, and median duration of response was not reached as only 2 out of 7 responders had disease progression during follow-up. TRAEs of any grade were noted in 37% and most commonly included fatigue (12%), fever (10%) and rash (10%). Nivolumab treatments were postponed in 34% and discontinued in 15% of patients due to intolerance. No treatment-related deaths were observed. Conclusions: Nivolumab monotherapy demonstrated objective responses and was well tolerated in a heterogeneous population of patients with non-clear cell mRCC. In the absence of other data in this treatment setting, this study lends support to the use of nivolumab for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Over the past 12 years, medical treatment for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has transitioned from a nonspecific immune approach (in the cytokine era), to targeted therapy against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and now to novel immunotherapy agents. Multiple agents-including molecules against vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and related receptors; inhibitors of other targets, such as the mammalian target of rapamycin and the MET and AXL tyrosine-protein kinase receptors; and an immune-checkpoint inhibitor-have been approved based on significant activity in patients with advanced RCC. Despite these advances, important questions remain regarding biomarkers of efficacy, patient selection, and the optimal combination and sequencing of agents. The purpose of this review is to summarize present management and future directions in the treatment of metastatic RCC. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:507-524. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Black men are at higher risk for prostate cancer death. Previous studies showed a benefit of different therapies, including immune-based therapy, for Black men with metastatic prostate cancer. We sought to explore the efficacy of the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab in Black men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing after abiraterone or enzalutamide. Methods This pilot phase II study enrolled self-identified Black patients who developed mCRPC on next-generation hormonal therapies (NHTs) abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide (NCT03770455). Enrolled patients received avelumab 10mg/kg IV every 2 weeks while remaining on the same NHTs. The primary endpoint of our study was ≥ 50% reduction in prostate specific antigen (PSA) at ≥8 weeks. Results A total of eight patients were enrolled. The median duration on NHTs prior to enrollment was 364 days (95% CI, 260.9-467.1). The median time to initiate avelumab was 8 days (3-14). With a median follow-up of 196 days, no patients achieved the primary endpoint. The median time to PSA progression was 35 days (95 CI%, 0-94.8) and the median time to radiographic and/or clinical progression was 44 days (95 CI%, 0-118.5). The study was closed prematurely due to safety concerns related to the rapid clinical progression observed in the patients enrolled on study. Conclusion In conclusion, the addition of avelumab to NHT did not demonstrate clinical activity in Black men with new mCRPC. The unexpected short interval between PSA and radiographic and/or clinical progression observed in this study has potential clinical implications. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03770455 (IND number 139559). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Genitourinary malignancies include cancers along the urinary tract and the male reproductive tract, encompassing the adrenal glands, kidneys, bladder, prostate, and testicles. Immunotherapy, which treats cancer by using the immune system to attack malignant cells, has historically been successful in treating some types of genitourinary cancers, especially of the bladder and kidney. In the past decade, a more precise method of immunotherapy, known as immune checkpoint inhibition, has gained popularity as it enhances the immune system's ability to recognize and destroy tumor cells. Several immune checkpoint inhibitors have achieved success in patients with advanced genitourinary cancers. This review provides a brief overview of traditional immunotherapies, focuses on how immune checkpoint inhibitors have achieved success in patients with advanced cancers, and investigates the role for immunotherapy in genitourinary malignancies in the future. For decades, limited options existed to treat metastatic genitourinary cancers, including treatment options that could be classified as immunotherapy. Historically, immunotherapy centered on systemic cytokines for the treatment of metastatic kidney cancer, which had several adverse effects, as well as the Bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine for non-metastatic bladder cancer. Within the past decade, advances in immunotherapy have led to several approvals from the United States Food and Drug Administration, particularly in the field of immune checkpoint inhibition. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are now being used extensively to treat multiple solid tumors, including kidney and bladder cancers, and they are also being tested in many other cancers. Despite encouraging data from phase 2/3 clinical trials, less is known about biomarkers that may predict better response to ICIs. The effect of ICIs in genitourinary cancers is heterogeneous, with some tumor types having little clinical data available, or ICIs having limited activity in other tumors. In this review, we briefly discuss approved immunotherapy agents prior to the time of ICIs. Then, given the emergence of this class of agents, we summarize the several important ICIs and the clinical trials that led to their approval. Finally, we mention ongoing and future clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]