Search

Abstract Background The identification of biomarkers to select patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) most likely to respond to combination immunotherapy (IO) is needed. We sought to investigate an association of the baseline neutrophil-to-eosinophil ratio (NER) with outcomes to nivolumab plus ipilimumab for patients with mRCC. Methods We performed a retrospective review of patients with clear cell mRCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab from Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and Duke Cancer Institute. Patients with prior receipt of immunotherapy and those without available baseline complete blood count with differential were excluded. Patients were divided into groups by the median baseline NER and analyzed for overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). Patients were also divided by median baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and analyzed for clinical outcome. Further analyses of patients above/below the median NER and NLR were performed in subgroups of IMDC intermediate/poor risk, IMDC favorable risk, and treatment naïve patients. Results A total of 110 patients were included: median age was 61 years and 75% were treatment naïve. The median NER (mNER) at baseline was 26.4. The ORR was 40% for patients with mNER (OR 2.39, p = 0.04). The median PFS for patients with mNER (HR 0.50, p mNER (HR 0.31, p mNLR group. Conclusions A lower baseline NER was associated with improved clinical outcomes (PFS, OS, and ORR) in patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and prospective validation of the baseline NER as a predictive biomarker for response to immunotherapy-based combinations in mRCC is warranted.

Abstract Background Several phase 3 studies reported positive results for combinations of Immune-Oncology (IO) and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) targeted therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC). However, there are limited data on outcomes to systemic therapy after IO-VEGF combinations. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with metastatic ccRCC treated at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic who initiated systemic therapy post IO-VEGF including combinations with VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (IO-TKI) and combinations with the anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab (IO-Bev). The study objectives were to evaluate the objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) on systemic therapy post IO-VEGF. RECIST v1.1 criteria were used to determine radiological responses and progression. Survival estimates were evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier methods and the log-rank test from the start of systemic therapy post IO-VEGF to the event of interest. Results A total of fifty-nine patients were treated post discontinuation of IO-VEGF regimens which included IO-Bev (n = 35; 59%) and IO-TKI (n = 24; 41%). Fifty-eight patients (98%) received IO-VEGF regimens as part of a clinical trial. Subsequent therapies included cabozantinib (n = 22; 37%), axitinib (n = 18; 31%), pazopanib (n = 4; 7%), lenvatinib and everolimus (n = 4; 7%), mTOR inhibitor monotherapy (n = 3; 5%), axitinib and dalantercept (n = 2; 3%), sunitinib (n = 1; 2%), sorafenib (n = 1; 2%), and treatment with agents on unreported clinical trials (n = 4; 7%). Patients treated on unreported clinical trials were excluded from the efficacy analysis. Post IO-VEGF, the ORR was 25% and median PFS was 12.0 months (95% CI, 8.2–24.5). Median OS was 24.5 months (95% CI, 12–NE) and 12 months OS rate was 63.3% (95% CI, 48.6–74.9). We observed no differences post IO-VEGF OS when comparing IO- TKI vs IO-Bev (Log-rank p = 0.73). Conclusions Post IO-VEGF, most patients received VEGFR-TKIs. In this setting, VEGFR-TKIs demonstrated clinical activity and remain a viable option for salvage therapy after progression on IO-VEGF.

Objective: The most common kidney cancer, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), is closely associated with obesity. The “clear cell” variant of RCC gets its name from the large lipid droplets that accumulate in the tumor cells. Although renal lipid metabolism is altered in ccRCC, the mechanisms and lipids driving this are not well understood. Methods: We used shotgun lipidomics in human ccRCC tumors and matched normal adjacent renal tissue. To assess MBOAT7s gene expression across tumor severity, we examined histologically graded human ccRCC samples. We then utilized genome editing in ccRCC cell lines to understand the role of MBOAT7 in ccRCC progression. Results: We identified a lipid signature for ccRCC that includes an increase in arachidonic acid-enriched phosphatidylinositols (AA-PI). In parallel, we found that ccRCC tumors have increased expression of acyltransferase enzyme membrane bound O-acyltransferase domain containing 7 (MBOAT7) that contributes to AA-PI synthesis. In ccRCC patients, MBOAT7 expression increases with tumor grade, and increased MBOAT7 expression correlates with poor survival. Genetic deletion of MBOAT7 in ccRCC cells decreases proliferation and induces cell cycle arrest, and MBOAT7−/− cells fail to form tumors in vivo. RNAseq of MBOAT7−/− cells identified alterations in cell migration and extracellular matrix organization that were functionally validated in migration assays. Conclusions: This study highlights the accumulation of AA-PI in ccRCC and demonstrates a novel way to decrease the AA-PI pool in ccRCC by limiting MBOAT7. Our data reveal that metastatic ccRCC is associated with altered AA-PI metabolism and identify MBOAT7 as a novel target in advanced ccRCC. Keywords: Clear cell renal carcinoma, Lipid, Phosphatidylinositol, Metabolism

Abstract The approval of immunotherapeutic agents and immunotherapy-based combination strategies in recent years has revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody, was approved as monotherapy in 2015 for aRCC after treatment with a VEGF-targeting agent. In April 2018, the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab, a CTLA-4 inhibitor, was approved for intermediate- and poor-risk, previously untreated patients with aRCC. Then, in 2019, combinations therapies consisting of pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) or avelumab (anti-PD-ligand (L) 1) with axitinib (a VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor) were also approved to treat aRCC and are likely to produce dramatic shifts in the therapeutic landscape. To address the rapid advances in immunotherapy options for patients with aRCC, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) reconvened its Cancer Immunotherapy Guidelines (CIG) Renal Cell Carcinoma Subcommittee and tasked it with generating updated consensus recommendations for the treatment of patients with this disease.

First-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) rapidly shifted in recent years with the advent of combination therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) doublets and combinations of an ICI with a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Despite improvements in overall survival and many durable responses, there exists a significant number of patients who fail to respond to these agents, and many patients eventually progress. Given the rapid changes in the front-line setting, it is essential to understand treatment options in refractory mRCC. Here, we review the evidence behind current options for later-line therapies, often involving additional VEGFR-TKIs alone or in combination with mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) targeted agents, as well as situations where consideration of immunotherapy rechallenge may be appropriate. Additionally, we describe ongoing clinical trials examining concurrent ICI and TKI in the refractory setting, as well as those studying novel agents, such as targeted drug–antibody conjugates and hypoxia inducible factor 2α (HIF-2α) inhibitors. Finally, we review considerations for non-clear cell histologies in the refractory setting and mechanisms of resistance in mRCC.

The dual immune checkpoint blockade targeting CTLA-4 and PD-1 (ipilimumab/nivolumab) or the IO combinations targeting PD-1 and anti-VEGF TKIs (pembrolizumab/axitinib, nivolumab/cabozantinib, pembrolizumab/lenvatinib) have demonstrated an overall survival benefit in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Despite this significant improvement in clinical outcomes in the frontline setting from IO/IO or the IO/TKI combinations, there is a subset of patients of advanced ccRCC that do not respond to such combinations or will lose the initial efficacy and have disease progression. Therefore, a remarkable unmet need exists to develop new therapeutics to improve outcomes. With an enhanced understanding of ccRCC biology and its interaction with the tumor microenvironment, several new therapies are under development targeting ccRCC metabolism, cytokine-signaling, alternative immune checkpoint proteins, and novel biological pathways. In addition, microbiome products enhancing IO response, antibody–drug conjugates, and targeted radionuclides are also being investigated. This review summarizes selected emerging agents that are under development in ccRCC.

A lower baseline neutrophil-to-eosinophil ratio (NER) has been associated with improved responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This study investigated the decrease in NER at week 6 after ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) initiation and treatment responses in mRCC. A retrospective study of ipi/nivo-treated mRCC at two US academic cancer centers was conducted. A landmark analysis at week 6 was performed to assess the association between the change in NER and clinical responses (progression-free survival (PFS)/overall survival (OS)). Week 6 NER was modeled as a continuous variable, after log transformation (Ln NER), and a categorical variable by percent change. There were 150 mRCC patients included: 78% had clear cell histology, and 78% were IMDC intermediate/poor risk. In multivariable regression analysis, every decrease of 1 unit of Ln NER at week 6 was associated with improved PFS (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 0.78, p-value:0.005) and OS (AHR: 0.67, p-value: 0.002). When NER was modeled by percent change, decreased NER > 50% was associated with improved PFS (AHR: 0.55, p-value: 0.03) and OS (AHR: 0.37, p-value: 0.02). The decrease in week 6 NER was associated with improved PFS/OS in ipi/nivo-treated mRCC. Prospective studies are warranted to validate NER change as a biomarker to predict ICI responses.

Abstract Background Nivolumab is approved for mRCC patients who have received prior anti-angiogenic therapy but the duration of therapy required for sustained clinical benefit is unknown. A phase II clinical trial to investigate the feasibility of intermittent nivolumab dosing was conducted. Methods Patients ≥18 years of age with mRCC who were previously treated with at least one antiangiogenic therapy were eligible. Patients were treated with nivolumab for twelve weeks. Patients who had RECIST PD were removed from the trial. Patients who did not initially achieve ≥10% reduction in tumor burden (TB) continued nivolumab per standard of care. Patients with ≥10% TB reduction entered a treatment-free observation phase with re-imaging every 12 weeks. Nivolumab was restarted in patients with a ≥ 10% TB increase and again held with TB reduction ≥10%. This intermittent nivolumab dosing continued until RECIST PD while on nivolumab. The primary objective was feasibility of intermittent nivolumab, defined as the proportion of patients eligible for intermittent therapy who elect to receive intermittent nivolumab. Intermittent nivolumab would be considered “feasible” if the acceptance rate was ≥80%. Forty patients provides > 95% power with 0.05 type I error, assuming a null acceptance rate of 50%. With the approval of the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab (April 2018) in front-line mRCC, this cohort was closed prior to completed pre-planned approval. Results Of the 14 patients enrolled, 13 (93%) were male with a median age 65. All had a prior nephrectomy and 12 (86%) were intermediate-risk by IMDC criteria. Five patients (36%) met the criteria for the intermittent phase of the trial (median TB decrease 46%) and all agreed to intermittent therapy. With a median follow-up of 48 weeks, only one patient restarted therapy. The four remaining patients have a sustained response for a median of 34 weeks (range, 16–53) off therapy. No patients developed RECIST PD while off therapy. Conclusions This prospective experience of intermittent nivolumab dosing in mRCC supports further investigation of intermittent immunotherapy dosing strategies in RCC. Trial registration NCT03126331 (Intermittent Nivolumab in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients; Date of registration 4/27/2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03126331).

Abstract Background A prospective, randomised phase II study demonstrated clinical benefit of axitinib dose titration in a subset of treatment-naïve patients treated with axitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This analysis evaluated patient baseline characteristics that may impact overall survival (OS) with axitinib dose titration. Methods Following a 4-week lead-in period during which all patients received axitinib 5 mg twice-daily (bid); patients meeting the predefined randomisation criteria were randomly assigned to receive axitinib 5 mg bid plus either axitinib or placebo titration. In exploratory analyses, patients were grouped into those who achieved OS ≥24 versus

Abstract Background Nivolumab is approved for the treatment of refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Patterns and predictors of progressive disease (PD) on nivolumab, and outcomes in such patients are lacking. Methods A retrospective analysis of patients (pts) with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) who received nivolumab at Cleveland Clinic (2015–2017) was performed. PD was defined per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 or clinical progression as per treating physician. Univariate analyses (UVA) and multivariate analyses (MVA) were used to identify clinical and laboratory markers as potential predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). Results Ninety patients with mean age of 65, 74% men, and 83% good or intermediate International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group were included. Median number of prior systemic treatments was 2 (range, 1–6). Median overall survival (OS) and PFS were 15.8 and 4.4 months, respectively. Fifty-seven patients (63%) had PD and 44% of patients with radiographic PD had new organ sites of metastases with brain (8/23, 35%) being the most common. Twelve patients received treatment beyond progression (TBP), and among 6 patients with available data, 3 (50%) had any tumor shrinkage (2 pts. with 17% shrinkage, one pt. with 29% shrinkage). Of 57 patients with PD, 28 patients (49%) were able to initiate subsequent treatment, mainly with axitinib and cabozantinib, while 40% of patients were transitioned to hospice after PD. In MVA, a higher baseline Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05–3.29; p = 0.033) was associated with an increased risk of progression, whereas higher (> 0.1 k/uL) baseline eosinophil count was associated with a lower risk of progression (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30–0.98; p = 0.042). Conclusion Brain was the most common site of PD in patients treated with nivolumab, and only half of patients progressing on nivolumab were able to initiate subsequent treatment. The risk of PD increased with a higher baseline NLR and reduced with a higher baseline eosinophil count.

Immunotherapy-based combinations have become standard of care in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Despite the potential for complete radiographic response, complete pathologic responses have been rarely reported. We present two cases of confirmed complete pathologic response to immunotherapy despite residual radiographic abnormalities. The first case describes a 68-year-old female with metastatic RCC who was treated with upfront pembrolizumab plus axitinib. She underwent nephrectomy after 15 doses of pembrolizumab with pathology revealing no evidence of viable tumor. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a complete pathologic response with pembrolizumab in metastatic RCC. The second case describes a 64-year-old female with metastatic RCC who was treated with second-line nivolumab after progression on cabozantinib. After 13 doses of nivolumab, she underwent nephrectomy with pathology revealing no evidence of viable tumor. These cases highlight the potential for scar tissue, fibrosis, and necrosis to persist radiographically after treatment with immunotherapy despite the absence of viable tumor cells.

Abstract 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.

Clear cell renal cancers (ccRCC) display elevated intracellular lipid storage. Here the authors show that such lipid accumulation is due to the repression of carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1A (CPT1A) enzyme that impairs fatty acid (FA) transport into the mitochondrion resulting in reduced FA beta oxidation.

Predicting response to ICI therapy among patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been uniquely challenging. We analyzed patient characteristics and clinical correlates from a retrospective single-site cohort of advanced RCC patients receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy (N = 97), as well as molecular parameters in a subset of patients, including multiplexed immunofluorescence (mIF), whole exome sequencing (WES), T cell receptor (TCR) sequencing, and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). Clinical factors such as the development of immune-related adverse events (odds ratio (OR) = 2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05–5.91) and immunological prognostic parameters, including a higher percentage of circulating lymphocytes (23.4% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.0015) and a lower percentage of circulating neutrophils (61.8% vs. 68.5%, p = 0.0045), correlated with response. Previously identified gene expression signatures representing pathways of angiogenesis, myeloid inflammation, T effector presence, and clear cell signatures also correlated with response. High PD-L1 expression (>10% cells) as well as low TCR diversity (≤644 clonotypes) were associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS). We corroborate previously published findings and provide preliminary evidence of T cell clonality impacting the outcome of RCC patients. To further biomarker development in RCC, future studies will benefit from integrated analysis of multiple molecular platforms and prospective validation.

Immunotherapy-based combinations, driven by PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4 inhibitors, has altered the treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Despite significant improvements in clinical outcomes, many patients do not experience deep or lasting benefits. Recent efforts to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from immunotherapy and immunotherapy-based combinations have shown promise but have not yet affected clinical practice. PD-L1 expression via immunohistochemistry (IHC) has shown promise in a few clinical trials, although variations in the IHC assays as well as the use of different values for positivity presents unique challenges for this potential biomarker. Several other candidate biomarkers were investigated including tumor mutational burden, gene expression signatures, single gene mutations, human endogenous retroviruses, the gastrointestinal microbiome, and peripheral blood laboratory markers. While individually these biomarkers have yet to explain the heterogeneity of treatment response to immunotherapy, using aggregate information from these biomarkers may inform clinically useful predictive biomarkers.

Background: Renal cell cancer (RCC) is the tenth most common malignancy in adults. In recent years, several approaches of active and passive immunotherapy have been studied extensively in clinical trials of patients with RCC. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the clinical efficacy of various approaches of specific immunotherapy in patients with RCC. Methods: We searched Medline, Scopus, CENTRAL, TRIP, DART, OpenGrey and ProQuest without any language filter through to 9 October 2015. One author reviewed search results for irrelevant and duplicate studies and two other authors independently extracted data from the studies. We collated study findings and calculated a weighted treatment effect across studies using Review Manager (version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration). Results: We identified 14 controlled studies with 4013 RCC patients after excluding irrelevant and duplicate studies from 11,319 references retrieved from a literature search. Overall, five autologous tumor cell vaccines, one peptide-based vaccine, one virus-based vaccine and one dendritic cell (DC)-based vaccine were studied in nine controlled studies of active specific immunotherapies. A total of three passive immunotherapies including autologous cytokine-induced killer (CIK) cells, auto lymphocyte therapy (ALT) and autologous lymphokine-activated killer (LAK) cells were studied in four controlled studies. The clinical efficacy of tumor lysate-pulsed DCs, with CIK cells was studied in one controlled trial concurrently. The overall quality of studies was fair. Meta-analysis of seven studies showed that patients undergoing specific immunotherapy had significantly higher overall survival (OS) than those in the control group [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.58–0.89, p = 0.003]. In addition, a meta-analysis of four studies showed that there was a significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) between patients undergoing specific immunotherapy and patients in control groups (HR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.73–1, p = 0.05). Conclusions: Results of this systematic review suggest that some specific immunotherapies such as Reniale, ACHN-IL-2, Newcastle disease virus (NDV) virus-infected autologous tumor cells, ALT and CIK treatment could be beneficiary for the treatment of patients with RCC.

Immunotherapy has produced durable clinical benefit in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC). In the past, patients treated with interferon-alpha (IFN) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) have achieved complete responses, many of which have lasted for multiple decades. More recently, a large number of new agents have been approved for RCC, several of which attack tumor angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) and VEGF receptors (VEGFR), as well as tumor metabolism, inhibiting the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Additionally, a new class of immunotherapy agents, immune checkpoint inhibitors, is emerging and will play a significant role in the treatment of patients with RCC. Therefore, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a Task Force, which met to consider the current role of approved immunotherapy agents in RCC, to provide guidance to practicing clinicians by developing consensus recommendations and to set the stage for future immunotherapeutic developments in RCC.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a highly vascular tumor in which a growing understanding of disease biology has been translated into clinically active systemic therapies. The most clinically developed targeted therapies in advanced RCC are those that target the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) ligand or receptor (VEGFR) and therapy directed against the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Sutent and sorafenib are orally available inhibitors of the VEGFR and platelet derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR). Temsirolimus is an mTOR inhibitor that leads to G1 cell cycle arrest and may affect VEGF production. This article briefly describes the biological pathways involved in the development of RCC and the results of clinical trials using targeted therapy in metastatic RCC.

Agents targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) represent active drugs in treating patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Studies have shown that sunitinib and axitinib can be associated with cardiac toxicity. Whether these agents should be restarted in patients who experience cardiac ischemia remains uncertain. Here, we present three patients with metastatic RCC who restarted sunitinib or axitinib after intervention of active ischemic cardiac disease without causing subsequent relevant cardiac events. This experience suggests that these agents can be continued after management of cardiac ischemia.

The discovery of the molecular mechanisms underlying development of renal cell carcinoma have allowed for the development of novel targeted therapy for treatment of this disease. Recently, multiple agents have become approved by regulatory authorities for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, including sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab (with interferon alpha), pazopanib, temsirolimus and everolimus. While these therapies have generated excitement and have clearly altered the treatment paradigm, multiple limitations have been elucidated over time. These include but are not limited to the fact that treatment is not associated with complete responses, a significant number of patients are primarily refractory to treatment, and clinical trials mostly include clear cell histology. Furthermore, the role of these therapies in the treatment of brain metastases remains unclear and therapies can have considerable toxicities. RECIST criteria (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) can be inadequate for the assessment of these modalities’ treatment efficacy, and biomarkers predictive of individual patient benefit have been elusive. This review summarizes the major clinical data and discusses these limitations.