Search

Context: Introduction of additional new agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has completely modified the systemic treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) during the last years., Objective: A comprehensive (nonsystematic) review to determine the suggested sequence or combinations for the systemic treatment of mRCC., Evidence Acquisition: PubMed and abstracts from main conferences up to December 2018 were reviewed to retrieve the current evidence for treatment of mRCC. Search terms included renal cell carcinoma, systemic therapy, targeted therapy (TT), and immunotherapy., Evidence Synthesis: Marked advances in the treatment of mRCC have been made with novel VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and multiple ICIs that have been included in the current treatment paradigm of mRCC. Remarkable advance has been made with the combination of double checkpoint blockade. The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab compared with sunitinib has shown to increase the overall survival in the intermediate- and poor-risk patients based on the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model., Conclusions: Double checkpoint blockade with ipilimumab and nivolumab has reported overall survival benefit in IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk patients, providing a durable response for a subset of patients. VEGF inhibitors remain the standard of care for favorable-risk patients in the first line. In the immediate future, more consolidated data on combination of VEGF-TT plus ICIs may show similar robust benefit with different safety profiles., Patient Summary: Multiple drugs and sequences are now accepted as effective treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown to increase the overall survival in treatment-naïve mRCC patients. Combinations of immunotherapy and antiangiogenics may be another option in the near future. Outcomes of the first line will determine the sequence, although the best sequence has yet to be defined., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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

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

Objectives: In the present study, we explored the real-world efficacy of the immuno-oncology checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in the second-line setting., Methods: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (imdc) dataset, a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in the second line after prior therapy targeted to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (vegfr) was performed. Baseline characteristics and imdc risk factors were collected. Overall survival (os) and time to treatment failure (ttf) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Overall response rates (orrs) were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences between cabozantinib and nivolumab treatment., Results: The analysis included 225 patients treated with nivolumab and 53 treated with cabozantinib. No significant difference in median os was observed: 22.10 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 17.18 months to not reached] with nivolumab and 23.70 months (95% ci: 15.52 months to not reached) with cabozantinib ( p = 0.61). The ttf was also similar at 6.90 months (95% ci: 4.60 months to 9.20 months) with nivolumab and 7.39 months (95% ci: 5.52 months to 12.85 months) with cabozantinib ( p = 0.20). The adjusted hazard ratio (hr) for nivolumab compared with cabozantinib was 1.30 (95% ci: 0.73 to 2.3), p = 0.38. When adjusted by imdc criteria and age, the hr was 1.32 (95% ci: 0.74 to 2.38), p = 0.35., Conclusions: Real-world imdc data indicate comparable os and ttf for nivolumab and cabozantinib. Both agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line vegfr-targeted therapy., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: FD declares research funding from Novartis, Pfizer, and Ipsen; TKC declares research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Roche, Tracon Pharmaceuticals, and Eisai, and consulting or advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Exelixis Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, and Prometheus Labs; BB declares honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen, and Bayer, and was also an investigator on the European Clinical Trials Database 2011-006085-40/MetaSun trial supported by Pfizer; NA declares consulting fees from Pfizer, Exelixis, Argos, and Cerulean; RK declares honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, and Bayer; TY declares remuneration for a lecture from Pfizer Japan and Novartis Pharma Japan; DYCH declares consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Astellas Pharma; IDD is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (APP1102604), and has received research funding from Astellas and Exelixis. The remaining authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Background: Sunitinib is administered on a rigid schedule that may not be optimal for all patients. We hypothesised that toxicity-driven dose and schedule changes would optimise drug exposure and outcome for each patient., Materials and Methods: In a phase 2 trial, 117 patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer were started on sunitinib 50 mg/day with the aim to treat for 28 days. Treatment breaks were reduced to 7 days. Sunitinib dose and the number of days on therapy were individualised based on toxicity aiming for ≤ grade II toxicity with dose escalation in patients with minimal toxicity. The null hypothesis for the primary end-point was a progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.5 months based on a study with similar eligibility criteria., Results: The null hypothesis was rejected (p < 0.001) with a median PFS of 12.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.6-16.5). The median overall survival was 38.5 months (95% CI: 28.3-not reached). The objective response rate (46.1%) and stable disease rate (38.5%) translated into a clinical benefit for 84.6% of patients with no decline in quality of life scores during therapy. Fewer patients were dose reduced (26.5% vs. 50%) or discontinued due to toxicity (7.7 vs. 18-20%) compared to standard sunitinib dosing, and 20 (18.4%) patients were dose escalated to 62.5 mg (12) and 75 mg (8) with a wide individual variation in the optimal dose and treatment duration., Conclusions: Individualised sunitinib therapy is feasible, safe and an effective method to manage toxicity with one of the best efficacy seen for oral vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT01499121., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs has shown encouraging preliminary antitumor activity across various tumor types including advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors or ipilimumab. Long-term outcomes from this study for the combination of nivolumab plus sunitinib or pazopanib in aRCC are presented., Methods: Patients with aRCC received nivolumab plus either sunitinib (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on/2 weeks off; N + S) or pazopanib (800 mg/day; N + P) until progression/unacceptable toxicity. The nivolumab starting dose was 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, with planned escalation to 5 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; antitumor activity was a secondary endpoint., Results: Arm N + S enrolled 33 patients, 19 of whom were treatment-naïve; this arm advanced to the expansion phase. Median follow-up was 50.0 months. Patients experienced high frequencies of adverse events (AEs) including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (82%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (39%). Investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) was 55% (18/33) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.7 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Arm N + P enrolled 20 patients, all had ≥1 prior systemic therapy; this arm was closed due to dose-limiting toxicities and did not proceed to expansion. Median follow-up was 27.1 months. Patients treated with N + P experienced high frequencies of AEs including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (70%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (25%). Investigator-assessed ORR was 45% (9/20) and median PFS was 7.2 months. Median OS was 27.9 months., Conclusions: The addition of standard doses of sunitinib or pazopanib to nivolumab resulted in a high incidence of high-grade toxicities limiting future development of either combination regimen. While there was no adverse impact on response and the OS outcome was notable, the findings suggest that the success of combination regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs may be dependent on careful selection of the antiangiogenic component and dose., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01472081 . Registered 16 November 2011.

Background: To the authors' knowledge, outcomes and prognostic tools have yet to be clearly defined in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are treated with immuno-oncology (IO) checkpoint inhibitors (programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] inhibitors). In the current study, the authors aimed to establish IO efficacy benchmarks in patients with mRCC and update patient outcomes in each International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic class., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using the IMDC database with data from 38 centers. It included patients with mRCC who were treated with ≥1 line of IO. Overall response rates (ORRs), duration of treatment (DOT), and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Patients were stratified using IMDC prognostic factors., Results: A total of 687 patients (90% with clear cell and 10% with non-clear cell) were included. The ORR was 27% in evaluable patients (461 patients). In patients treated with first-line nivolumab and ipilimumab (49 patients), the combination of PD-L1 inhibitor and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (72 patients), and PD-L1 inhibitor (51 patients), the ORR was 31%, 39%, and 40%, respectively, and the median DOT was 8.3 months, 14.7 months, and 8.3 months, respectively. The ORR for second-line, third-line, and fourth-line nivolumab was 22%, 24%, and 26%, respectively. The median DOT was 5.7 months, 6.2 months, and 8.3 months, respectively, in the second-line, third-line, and fourth-line settings. When segregated into IMDC favorable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk groups, the median OS rates for the first-line, second-line, third-line, and fourth-line treatment settings were not reached (NR), NR, and NR, respectively (P = .163); NR, 26.7 months, and 7.4 months, respectively (P < 0. 0001); 36.1 months, 28.2 months, and 11.1 months, respectively (P = .016); and NR, NR, and 6.7 months, respectively (P = .047)., Conclusions: The ORR was not found to deteriorate from the first-line to the fourth-line of IO therapy. In the second line through fourth line, the IMDC criteria appropriately stratified patients into favorable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk groups for OS., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

Context: In the last decade, there has been a proliferation of treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, direct comparative data are lacking for most of these agents., Objective: To indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies used in the first-line treatment of mRCC., Evidence Acquisition: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched using the OvidSP platform for studies indexed from database inception to October 23, 2017. Abstracts of conferences of relevant medical societies were included, and the systematic search was supplemented by hand search. For the systematic review, we identified any parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing first-line systemic therapy. For network meta-analysis, we limited these to a clinically-relevant network based on standard practice patterns. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs) were secondary outcomes., Evidence Synthesis: In total, 37 trials reporting on 13 128 patients were included in the systematic review. The network meta-analysis comprised 10 trials reporting on 4819 patients. For PFS (10 trials, 4819 patients), there was a high likelihood (SUCRA 91%) that cabozantinib was the preferred treatment. For OS (5 trials, 3379 patients), there was a 48% chance that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was the preferred option. There was a 67% likelihood that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was the best tolerated regime with respect to AEs., Conclusions: Cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are likely to be the preferred first-line agents for treating mRCC; however, direct comparative studies are warranted. These findings may provide guidance to patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions and may help inform future direct comparative trials., Patient Summary: There are many treatment options for patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We indirectly compared the available options and found that cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are likely to be preferable choices as the first-line treatment in this situation., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the first- and second-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) treatment setting, we investigated real-world outcomes and evaluated the prognostic role of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR)., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with mUC treated with systemic therapy. Overall response rates (ORRs), median time to treatment failure (mTTF), and median overall survival (mOS) were calculated. The association between baseline NLR (using a literature-derived cut-off of 3, as well as the best cut-off NLR value of 5.45 as identified by X-Tile software from this dataset) and mTTF and mOS were evaluated using Cox regression analysis., Results: We evaluated 233 patients. In the first-line, the ORR was 25%. mTTF and mOS were 6.9 months and 9.0 months, respectively. Low baseline NLR was significantly associated with improved 8.3-month mTTF, in contrast to 5.8 months for patients with high NLR (P = .046). Low NLR was significantly correlated with a longer mOS of 13.1 months, compared with high NLR (8.2 months; P = .007). In the second-line, an ORR of 22%, an mTTF of 4.1 months, and an mOS of 8 months were observed. Low NLR in the second-line was significantly associated with improved mTTF at 7.9 months versus high NLR patients (3.3 months; P = .023). Second-line low NLR was significantly associated with a longer mOS of 12.2 months, in comparison to 6.8 months with high NLR (P = .003)., Conclusion: In this real-world analysis of patients with mUC, first-line outcomes were lower than expected. Low NLR in the first- and second-line is associated with improved mTTF and mOS., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: The impact of the change in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is poorly understood., Objective: To evaluate the prognostic impact of the change in NLR during NAC for patients with MIBC., Methods: Patients referred to academic, community, and quaternary referral centres in Alberta, Canada from 2005 to 2015, Ontario, Canada from 2005 to 2013, and Southampton, UK from 2004 to 2010 were evaluated. 376 eligible patients were treated with NAC for clinical T2-4aN0M0 disease, and 296 were evaluable for the change in NLR. A high NLR was defined as being an NLR > 3. Relationships between the change in NLR from baseline to mid-NAC (pre-cycle 3) and outcomes were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used with the log-rank test for group comparisons., Results: Median follow-up was 22.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.9-30.0). Patients with a sustained high NLR had a median disease-free survival (DFS) of 12.6 months, compared to 34.8 months for those with a sustained low NLR (log-rank test p  = 0.0025; hazard ratio [HR] 0.61 [95% CI: 0.44-0.84]). Median overall survival (OS) was 19.4 months for patients with a sustained high NLR, compared to 44.0 months for patients with a sustained low NLR (log-rank test p  = 0.0011; HR 0.54 [95% CI: 0.38-0.77])., Conclusions: A sustained high NLR from baseline to mid-NAC is an independent prognostic factor for patients with MIBC.

Background: The CHAARTED (ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer) and STAMPEDE (Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy) trials showed that the addition of docetaxel (D) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) prolonged longevity of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the impact of upfront D on subsequent therapies is still unexplored. As abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (E) are the most commonly used first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), we aimed to assess whether they maintained their efficacy after ADT+D versus ADT alone., Patients and Methods: A cohort of patients with mCRPC treated between 2014 and 2017 with first-line AA or E for mCRPC was identified from 3 hospitals' institutional review board-approved databases. Patients were classified by use of D for mHSPC. This time frame was chosen as ADT+D became a valid therapeutic option for mHSPC in 2014, and it inherently entailed a short follow-up time on AA/E. The endpoints included overall survival from ADT start, overall survival from AA/E start, and time to AA/E start from ADT start. Differences between groups were assessed using the log-rank test., Results: Of the 102 patients with mCRPC identified, 50 (49%) had previously received ADT alone, while 52 (51%) had ADT+D. No statistically significant difference in any of the evaluated outcomes was observed between the 2 cohorts. Yet, deaths in the ADT+D group were 12 versus 21 in the ADT alone, after a median follow-up of 24.4 and 29.8 months, respectively., Conclusion: In a cohort of ADT/ADT+D-treated patients with mCRPC with short times to first-line AA/E and follow-up, the efficacy of AA/E is similar regardless of previous use of D., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose In the phase III METEOR trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01865747), 658 previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. The cabozantinib arm had improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate compared with everolimus. Changes in quality of life (QoL), an exploratory end point, are reported here. Patients and Methods Patients completed the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) and the five-level EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at baseline and throughout the study. The nine-item FKSI-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), a subset of FKSI-19, was also investigated. Data were summarized descriptively and by repeated-measures analysis (for which a clinically relevant difference was an effect size ≥ 0.3). Time to deterioration (TTD) was defined as the earlier of date of death, radiographic progressive disease, or ≥ 4-point decrease from baseline in FKSI-DRS. Results The QoL questionnaire completion rates remained ≥ 75% through week 48 in each arm. There was no difference over time for FKSI-19 Total, FKSI-DRS, or EQ-5D data between the cabozantinib and everolimus arms. Among the individual FKSI-19 items, cabozantinib was associated with worse diarrhea and nausea; everolimus was associated with worse shortness of breath. These differences are consistent with the adverse event profile of each drug. Cabozantinib improved TTD overall, with a marked improvement in patients with bone metastases at baseline. Conclusion In patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, relative to everolimus, cabozantinib generally maintained QoL to a similar extent. Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib extended TTD overall and markedly improved TTD in patients with bone metastases.

Purpose: Lymphadenectomy is a well established practice for many urological malignancies but its role in renal cell carcinoma is less clear. Our primary objective was to determine whether lymphadenectomy impacted survival in patients with fully resected, high risk renal cell carcinoma., Materials and Methods: Patients with fully resected, high risk, nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomized to adjuvant sorafenib, sunitinib or placebo in the ASSURE (Adjuvant Sorafenib and Sunitinib for Unfavorable Renal Carcinoma) trial. Lymphadenectomy was performed for cN+ disease or at surgeon discretion. Patients treated with lymphadenectomy were compared to patients in the trial who did not undergo lymphadenectomy. The primary outcome was overall survival associated with lymphadenectomy. Secondary outcomes were disease free survival, factors associated with performing lymphadenectomy and surgical complications., Results: Of the 1,943 patients in ASSURE 701 (36.1%) underwent lymphadenectomy, including all resectable patients with cN+ and 30.1% of those with cN0 disease. A median of 3 lymph nodes (IQR 1-8) were removed and the rate of pN+ disease in the lymphadenectomy group was 23.4%. There was no overall survival benefit for lymphadenectomy relative to no lymphadenectomy (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93-1.39, p = 0.20). In patients with pN+ disease who underwent lymphadenectomy no improvement in overall or disease-free survival was observed for adjuvant therapy relative to placebo. Lymphadenectomy did not confer an increased risk of surgical complications (14.2% vs 13.4%, p = 0.63)., Conclusions: The benefit of lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing surgery for high risk renal cell carcinoma remains uncertain. Future strategies to answer this question should include a prospective trial in which patients with high risk renal cell carcinoma are randomized to specific lymphadenectomy templates., (Copyright © 2018 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown enhanced antitumor activity compared with monotherapy in tumor types such as melanoma. The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in combination, and nivolumab plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Safety and efficacy results from the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arms of the study are presented. Patients and Methods Patients with mRCC received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3), or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N3I3) every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or toxicity. End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS). Results All patients in the N3I3 arm (n = 6) were censored at the time of analysis as a result of dose-limiting toxicity or other reasons. Forty-seven patients were treated in both the N3I1 and the N1I3 arm, and baseline patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38.3% and 61.7% of the patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ongoing responses in 42.1% and 36.8% of patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. The 2-year OS was 67.3% and 69.6% in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. Conclusion Nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy demonstrated manageable safety, notable antitumor activity, and durable responses with promising OS in patients with mRCC.

Background: The risk of suicide is higher for patients with colorectal cancer (crc) than for the general population. Given known differences in morbidity and sites of recurrence, we sought to compare the predictors of suicide for patients with colon cancer and with rectal cancer., Methods: Using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, adult patients with confirmed adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum during 1973-2009 were identified. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used to assess selected variables, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine predictors of suicide., Results: The database identified 187,996 patients with rectal cancer and 443,368 with colon cancer. Compared with the rectal cancer group, the colon cancer group was older (median age: 70 years vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) and included more women (51% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). Suicide rates were similar in the colon and rectal cancer groups [611 (0.14%) vs. 337 (0.18%), p < 0.001]. On univariate analysis, rectal cancer was a predictor of suicide [hazard ratio (hr): 1.26; 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.10 to 1.43]. However, after adjusting for clinical and pathology factors, rectal cancer was not a predictor of suicide (hr: 1.05; 95% ci: 0.83 to 1.33). In the colon cancer cohort, independent predictors of suicide included older age, male sex, white race, and lack of primary resection. The aforementioned predictors, plus metastatic disease, similarly predicted suicide in the rectal cancer cohort., Conclusions: The suicide risk in crc patients is low (<0.2%), and no difference was found based on location of the primary tumour. Sex, age, race, distant spread of disease, and intact primary tumour were the main predictors of suicide among crc patients. Further studies and interventions are needed to target these high-risk groups.

Several drugs have demonstrated clinical activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The identification of key metabolic pathways has led to the development of novel targeted therapies which have drastically changed the treatment paradigm of mRCC. Moreover, immune-checkpoint inhibitors have recently shown significant activity in advanced disease. Despite these advancements, the role of adjuvant therapy in localized, non-metastatic RCC remains unclear. The utility of many of these agents in the adjuvant setting is currently being actively explored. In this review, we will summarize the main clinical trials investigating adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma, focusing primarily on immunotherapy and targeted agents., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose Patients with advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) have limited therapeutic options. PRCC may involve activation of the MET pathway, for example, through gene amplification or mutations. Savolitinib (AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib) is a highly selective MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We report results of a single-arm, multicenter, phase II study evaluating the safety and efficacy of savolitinib in patients with PRCC according to MET status. Patients and Methods Patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic PRCC were enrolled and received savolitinib 600 mg orally once daily. MET-driven PRCC was defined as any of the following: chromosome 7 copy gain, focal MET or HGF gene amplification, or MET kinase domain mutations. Efficacy was assessed according to MET status. Safety, toxicity, and patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes were assessed in all patients. Results Of 109 patients treated, PRCC was MET driven in 44 (40%) and MET independent in 46 (42%); MET status was unknown in 19 (17%). MET-driven PRCC was strongly associated with response; there were eight confirmed partial responders with MET-driven disease (18%), but none with MET-independent disease ( P = .002). Median progression-free survival for patients with MET-driven and MET-independent PRCC was 6.2 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 7.0 months) and 1.4 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.7 months), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.52; log-rank P < .001). The most frequent adverse events associated with savolitinib were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and peripheral edema. Conclusion These data show activity and tolerability of savolitinib in the subgroup of patients with MET-driven PRCC. Furthermore, molecular characterization of MET status was more predictive of response to savolitinib than a classification based on pathology. These findings justify investigating savolitinib in MET-driven PRCC.

Background: Treatment outcomes are poorly characterized in patients with metastatic chromophobe renal cell cancer (chrRCC), a subtype of renal cell carcinoma. Objective: This retrospective series aims to determine metastatic chrRCC treatment outcomes in the targeted therapy era. Methods: A retrospective data analysis was performed using the IMDC dataset of 4970 patients to determine metastatic chrRCC treatment outcomes in the targeted therapy era. Results: 109/4970 (2.2%) patients had metastatic chrRCC out of all patients with mRCC treated with targeted therapy. These patients were compared with 4861/4970 (97.8%) clear cell mRCC (ccRCC) patients. Patients with metastatic chrRCC had a similar OS compared to patients with ccRCC (23.8 months (95% CI 16.7 - 28.1) vs 22.4 months (95% CI 21.4 - 23.4), respectively ( p  = 0.0908). Patients with IMDC favorable (18%), intermediate (59%) and poor risk (23%) had median overall survivals of 31.4, 27.3, and 4.8 months, respectively ( p  = 0.028). Conclusions: To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest series of metastatic chrRCC patients and these results set new benchmarks for survival in clinical trial design and patient counseling. The IMDC criteria risk categories seem to stratify patients into appropriate favourable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, although larger patient numbers are required. It appears that outcomes between metastatic chrRCC and ccRCC are similar when treated with conventional targeted therapies. Patients with metastatic chrRCC can be treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and enrolled in clinical trials to further measure outcomes in this rare patient population.

In 2017, there is no adjuvant systemic therapy proven to increase overall survival in non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab improves overall survival in metastatic treatment refractory RCC and is generally tolerable. Mouse solid tumor models have revealed a benefit with a short course of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade compared to adjuvant therapy. Two ongoing phase 2 studies of perioperative nivolumab in RCC patients have shown preliminary feasibility and safety with no surgical delays or complications. The recently opened PROSPER RCC trial (A Phase 3 RandOmized Study Comparing PERioperative Nivolumab vs. Observation in Patients with Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Nephrectomy; EA8143) will examine if the addition of perioperative nivolumab to radical or partial nephrectomy can improve clinical outcomes in patients with high risk localized and locally advanced RCC. With the goal of increasing cure and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates in non-metastatic RCC, we are executing a three-pronged, multidisciplinary approach of presurgical priming with nivolumab followed by resection and adjuvant PD-1 blockade. We plan to enroll 766 patients with clinical stage ≥T2 or node positive M0 RCC of any histology in this global, randomized, unblinded, phase 3 National Clinical Trials Network study. The investigational arm will receive two doses of nivolumab 240 mg IV prior to surgery followed by adjuvant nivolumab for 9 months. The control arm will undergo the current standard of care: surgical resection followed by observation. Patients are stratified by clinical T stage, node positivity, and histology. The trial is powered to detect a 14.4% absolute benefit in the primary endpoint of RFS from the ASSURE historical control of 55.8% to 70.2% at 5 years (HR = 0.70). The study is also powered to detect a significant overall survival benefit (HR 0.67). Key safety, feasibility, and quality of life endpoints are incorporated. PROSPER RCC exemplifies team science with a host of planned correlative work to investigate the impact of the baseline immune milieu and changes after neoadjuvant priming on clinical outcomes.

Background: We hypothesized that changes in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic category at start of second-line therapy (2L) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) might predict response., Objective: To assess outcomes of 2L according to type of therapy and change in IMDC prognostic category., Design, Setting, and Participants: We performed a retrospective review of the IMDC database for mRCC patients who received first-line (1L) VEGF inhibitors (VEGFi) and then 2L with VEGFi or mTOR inhibitors (mTORi). IMDC prognostic categories were defined before each line of therapy (favorable, F; intermediate, I; poor, P). Data were analyzed for 1516 patients, of whom 89% had clear cell histology., Intervention: All included patients received targeted therapy for mRCC., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure, and response to 2L were analyzed using Cox or logistic regression., Results and Limitations: At start of 2L, 60% of patients remained in the same prognostic category; 9.0% improved (3% I → F; 6% P → I); 31% deteriorated (15% F → I or P; 16% I → P). Patients with the same or better IMDC prognostic category had a longer time to treatment failure if they remained on VEGFi compared to those who switched to mTORi (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] ranging from 0.33 to 0.78, adjusted p<0.05). Patients who deteriorated from F to I appeared more likely to benefit from switching to mTORi (median OS 16.5 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.0-19.0 for VEGFi; 20.2 mo, 95% CI 14.3-26.1 for mTORi; AHR 1.53, 95% CI 1.04-2.24; adjusted p=0.03)., Conclusions: Changes in IMDC prognostic category predict the subsequent clinical course for patients with mRCC and provide a rational basis for selection of subsequent therapy., Patient Summary: The pattern of treatment failure might help to predict what the next treatment should be for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: A significant subgroup of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients discontinue vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapies (VEGF-TT) because of toxicity. Whether clinical outcomes differ in patients who receive second-line (2L) targeted therapy on the basis of reason for discontinuation of first-line (1L) therapy is unknown., Patients and Methods: Patients from 15 International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) centers who started 2L targeted therapy were included and the reason for discontinuation of 1L therapy retrospectively collected. Treatment outcomes of 2L, including response, time to treatment failure, and overall survival (OS) were assessed., Results: In total, 1124 patients were identified: 866 patients (77%) discontinued 1L VEGF-TT because of disease progression, and 208 patients (19%) because of toxicity. The reason for discontinuation of 1L therapy did not differ according to IMDC risk group. Compared with patients who stopped 1L VEGF-TT because of disease progression, patients who stopped because of toxicity had greater clinical benefit (nonprogressive disease as best response) in 2L treatment (68% vs. 56%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.35; P = .023) and longer OS (17.4 vs. 11.2 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84; P = .0002) adjusted for type of therapy, time to initiation of 2L treatment, IMDC risk group, and number of metastases at initiation of 2L treatment., Conclusion: mRCC patients who discontinue 1L VEGF-TT because of toxicity have better outcomes with 2L therapy than patients who stop therapy because of disease progression. These findings should be taken into consideration when designing clinical trials for 2L therapies in mRCC., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Outcomes of metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) patients are poorly characterized in the era of targeted therapy. A total of 5474 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) were retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes were compared between clear cell (ccRCC; n = 5008) and papillary patients (n = 466), and recorded type I and type II papillary patients (n = 30 and n = 165, respectively). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) favored ccRCC over pRCC. OS was 8 months longer in ccRCC patients and the hazard ratio of death was 0.71 for ccRCC patients. No differences in PFS or ORR were detected between type I and II PRCC in this limited dataset. The median OS for type I pRCC was 20.0 months while the median OS for type II was 12.6 months (P = 0.096). The IMDC prognostic model was able to stratify pRCC patients into favorable risk (OS = 34.1 months), intermediate risk (OS = 17.0 months), and poor-risk groups (OS = 6.0 months). pRCC patient outcomes were inferior to ccRCC, even after controlling for IMDC prognostic factors. The IMDC prognostic model was able to effectively stratify pRCC patients., (© 2017 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Clinical trial data has shown pazopanib to be non-inferior in overall survival (OS) compared to sunitinib as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes and compare dose-modifying toxicities of mRCC patients treated with suntinib or pazopanib in the real-world setting., Methods: Data were collected on mRCC patients using the prospective Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database from January 2011 to November 2015. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox regression adjusted for several risk factors and the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: We identified 670 patients treated with sunitinib (n=577) and pazopanib (n=93). There were no significant differences in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (p=0.807). Patients treated with sunitinib had improved OS compared with pazopanib (median 31.7 vs. 20.6 months, p=0.028; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38 - 0.94). Time to treatment failure (TTF) was numerically, but not statistically, improved with sunitinib (medians 11.0 vs. 8.4 months, p=0.130; aHR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59 - 1.28). Outcomes with individualized dosing on sunitinib were unavailable for this analysis. Patients treated with sunitinib had a higher incidence of mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, and gastroesophageal reflux disease; patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of hepatotoxicity., Conclusions: In Canadian patients with mRCC, treatment with sunitinib appears to be associated with an improved OS compared to pazopanib in the first-line setting. Patient selection factors and the contemporary practice of individualized dosing with sunitinib may contribute to these real-world outcomes and warrant further investigation.

Purpose: Obesity is an established risk factor for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, some reports suggest that RCC developing in obese patients may be more indolent. We investigated the clinical and biologic effect of body mass index (BMI) on treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic RCC., Methods: The impact of BMI (high BMI: ≥ 25 kg/m 2 v low BMI: < 25 kg/m 2 ) on overall survival (OS) and treatment outcome with targeted therapy was investigated in 1,975 patients from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) and in an external validation cohort of 4,657 patients. Gene expression profiling focusing on fatty acid metabolism pathway, in The Cancer Genome Atlas data set, and immunohistochemistry staining for fatty acid synthase (FASN) were also investigated. Cox regression was undertaken to estimate the association of BMI with OS, adjusted for the IMDC prognostic factors., Results: In the IMDC cohort, median OS was 25.6 months (95% CI, 23.2 to 28.6) in patients with high BMI versus 17.1 months (95% CI, 15.5 to 18.5) in patients with low BMI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95). In the validation cohort, high BMI was associated with improved OS (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.93; medians: 23.4 months [95% CI, 21.9 to 25.3 months] v 14.5 months [95% CI, 13.8 to 15.9 months], respectively). In The Cancer Genome Atlas data set (n = 61), FASN gene expression inversely correlated with BMI (P = .034), and OS was longer in the low FASN expression group (medians: 36.8 v 15.0 months; P = .002). FASN immunohistochemistry positivity was more frequently detected in IMDC poor (48%) and intermediate (34%) risk groups than in the favorable risk group (17%; P-trend = .015)., Conclusion: High BMI is a prognostic factor for improved survival and progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC treated with targeted therapy. Underlying biology suggests a role for the FASN pathway.

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

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.)