Search

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are cornerstones of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, optimal treatment sequencing after progression is unknown. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes of tivozanib-nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed following one or two lines of therapy in the post-ICI setting., Methods: TiNivo-2 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 190 sites across 16 countries, in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and progression during or after one to two previous lines of therapy (including one ICI) were randomised 1:1 to tivozanib (0·89 mg per day, orally) plus nivolumab (480 mg every 4 weeks, intravenously) or tivozanib (1·34 mg per day, orally). Randomisation was stratified by immediate previous therapy (ICI or non-ICI) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to first documentation of objective progressive disease according to RECIST 1·1 or death from any cause, whichever came first, by independent radiology review. Efficacy was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received one or more doses of the study drug. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04987203) and is active and not recruiting., Findings: From Nov 4, 2021, to June 16, 2023, 343 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib-nivolumab (n=171) or tivozanib monotherapy (n=172). Median follow-up was 12·0 months. Median PFS was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-7·4) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 7·4 months (5·6-9·2) with tivozanib monotherapy (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·84-1·43; p=0·49). Among those with an ICI as their immediate previous therapy (n=244), median PFS was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6-9·6) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 9·2 months (7·4-10·0) with tivozanib monotherapy. With non-ICIs as the most recent therapy, lower median PFS was observed, with no difference between groups (tivozanib-nivolumab 3·7 months [95% CI 2·7-5·4] and with tivozanib monotherapy 3·7 months [1·9-7·2]). Serious adverse events occurred in 54 (32%) of 168 patients receiving tivozanib-nivolumab and 64 (37%) of 171 patients receiving tivozanib monotherapy. One (<1%) treatment-related death occurred (tivozanib group)., Interpretation: These data further support that ICI rechallenge should be discouraged in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, these data suggest that tivozanib monotherapy has efficacy in the post-ICI setting., Funding: Aveo Pharmaceuticals., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TKC reports institutional and personal paid or unpaid support for research, advisory board participation, consultancy, and honoraria within the past 5 years from Alkermes, Arcus Bio, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Neomorph, Nuscan and Precede Bio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, and Tempest and equity in Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio, CureResponse, InnDura Therapeutics, and Primium. LA reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Astellas, Merck, MSD, Janssen, Eisai, and Amgen and support for travel expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Ipsen, and Pfizer. PB reports grants or contracts from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck, Gilead, Janssen, AAA Pharmaceutical, and Bayer; consulting fees from Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Gilead, AAA Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Gilead, AAA Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; and reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Gilead, AAA Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and AstraZeneca. SE reports consulting fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Kephren and support for attending meetings and travel from MSD, Chugai, Pfizer, and Janssen. JM-C reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas, Eisai, Adacap, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Adium, and Asofarma; support for attending meetings and travel from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Ipsen, Pfizer, Astellas, Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD. BG reports research funding grants from AbbVie, Accutar Biotechnology, Arcus Biosciences, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, AVEO Oncology, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eikon Therapeutics, Exelixis, Roche and Genentech, Flare Therapeutics, Harbour BioMed, IDEAYA Biosciences, Janssen, Janux Therapeutics, Jubilant Therapeutics, Kineta, Kinnate BioPharma, Loxo, Mink Therapeutics, Nuvation Bio, Profound Bio, Takeda Therapeutics, Teon Therapeutics, Tmunity Therapeutics, Xencor, and Zenshine and consulting fees from AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adicent Therapeutics, AIQ Global, Amgen, Arcus Biosciences, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, AVEO Oncology, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Rondo Therapeutics, Sanofi–Aventis, Seagen, and Xencor. PB reports honoraria from UroToday; consulting or advising fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Aveo, Merck, Ipson, and Dendreon; speakers bureau funding from AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer and Astellas, and Merck; and research funding from Exelixis, Aveo, Blue Earth, Pfizer, and Merck. AB reports honoraria from Gilead Sciences, Cardinal Health, Eisai, and Natera; consulting or advising fees from EMD Serono, Seattle Genetics, and Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer; speakers bureau funds from Eisai; and research funding from Merck, EMD Serono, Natera, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb and Celgene, Genentech and Roche, and Aveo. MTB reports consulting fees, payment or honoraria, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Bristol Myers Squibb. HM reports honoraria from EMD Serono and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Arcus Bioscience, Apollomics, Nektar, RevImmune, HUYA Bioscience International, Aveo, Xencor, and Pfizer; and travel accommodations or expenses from Aveo, Seagen, Bayer, and Genentech. RR reports honoraria from Ipsen, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Advanced Accelerator Applications, and Eisai; consulting or advisory fees from Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Ipsen, and MSD; and travel accommodations or expenses from Ipsen, MSD Oncology, and Janssen. RRM reports consulting or advisory roles for Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelixis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion, Calithera, AstraZeneca, Myovant, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento Therapeutics, Aveo, Seattle Genetics, Telix, Eli Lilly, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Ambrx, Arcus Biosciences, Sumitomo Pharma Oncology, Eisai, and NeoMorph and research funding from Bayer, Tempus, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Oncternal Therapeutics, and Artera. AC-R reports honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from OncLive and MJH Life Sciences, ASCO Direct, Exelixis, Medical Oncology Association of Southern California, EPG Health, Eisai Co, Aveo, and Seagen. HH reports grants or contracts for clinical trial support from Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Agenus, Hoosier, and Aveo and advisory consulting fees from Eisai, Aveo, Pfizer, and Bristol Myers Squibb. DYCH reports consultancy fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, Eisai, and Merck and research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ipsen. EB reports funding for the provision of study materials, medical writing, or article processing charges from Aveo Oncology and stock or stock options from Autolus. KEB reports grants funding from Bristol Myers Squibb–Lung Cancer Foundation of America–International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Aravive, Pionyr, and Arsenal Bio; consulting fees from Aravive, Aveo, Alpine Bioscience, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Adicet, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Eisai, Merck, Nimbus, and Xencor; and honoraria funding from Merck. BAM reports grants to his institution from Aveo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Gilead, and Pfizer; consulting fees from Arcus, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Gilead, Lily, and Pfizer; payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Targeted Oncology, Dava Oncology, Aptitude Health, and Curio; and patents planned, issued, or pending with Gilead. RJM reports consulting fees from Aveo, Merck, Exelixis, and Takeda, grants or contracts from Pfizer, Genentech and Roche, Eisai, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Exelixis; and data safety monitoring and advisory board participation fees from Incyte. RI reports no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) signaling pathway plays a role in the pathogenesis of selected patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). In the phase II PAPMET trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02761057), cabozantinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival and improved objective response rate compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced PRCC. Here, we present the final overall survival (OS) analysis. In this multicenter, randomized phase II, open-label trial, 147 patients with advanced PRCC who have received up to one previous therapy (excluding vascular endothelial growth factor-directed agents) were assigned to sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib. Ultimately, savolitinib and crizotinib arms were closed because of futility. With a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median OS was 21.5 months (95% CI, 12.0 to 28.1) with cabozantinib and 17.3 months (95% CI, 12.8 to 21.8) with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.36; P = .46). The OS landmark estimates for cabozantinib and sunitinib were 50% versus 39% at 24 months and 32% versus 28% at 36 months. In conclusion, we observed no significant difference in OS across treatment arms. Although cabozantinib represents a well-supported option for advanced PRCC, the lack of survival benefit underscores the need to develop novel therapies for this disease.

Immunotherapy-based systemic treatment (ST) is the standard of care for most patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has historically shown benefit for select patients with mRCC, but its role and timing are not well understood in the era of immunotherapy. The primary objective of this study is to assess outcomes in patients who received ST only, CN followed by ST (CN-ST), and ST followed by CN (ST-CN). The Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) database was queried to identify patients with de novo mRCC who received immunotherapy-based ST between January 2014 and June 2023. These patients were classified into three categories as described above. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the impact of the timing of ST and CN on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), after adjusting for the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, age, and comorbidities. Best overall response and complications of ST and CN for these cohorts were collected. A total of 588 patients were included in this study: 331 patients received ST only, 215 patients received CN-ST, and 42 patients received ST-CN. Patient and disease characteristics including age, gender, performance status, IMDC risk category, comorbidity, histology, type of ST, and metastatic sites are reported. OS analysis favored patients who received ST-CN (hazard ratio [HR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.68) and CN-ST (HR 0.68, CI 0.47-0.97) over patients who received ST only. PFS analysis showed a similar trend for ST-CN (HR 0.45, CI 0.26-0.77) and CN-ST (HR 0.9, CI 0.68-1.17). This study examined baseline features and outcomes associated with the use and timing of CN and ST using real-world data via a large Canadian real-world cohort. Patients selected to receive CN after ST demonstrated improved outcomes. There were no appreciable differences in perioperative complications across groups. Limitations include the small number of patients in the ST-CN group and residual confounding and selection biases that may influence the outcomes in patients undergoing CN.

Background and Objective: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but real-world data on sequential treatment are scarce. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of first-line (1L) systemic therapy following adjuvant immune oncology (IO)-based regimens., Methods: A retrospective study including patients with recurrent RCC following adjuvant IO across 29 international institutions was conducted. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) on 1L systemic therapy estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Preplanned subanalyses of clinical outcomes by type of 1L systemic therapy, recurrence timing, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups were performed. Treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, or corticosteroid use were assessed., Key Findings and Limitations: A total of 94 patients were included. Most received adjuvant pembrolizumab (n = 37, 39%), atezolizumab (n = 28, 30%), or nivolumab + ipilimumab (n = 15, 16%). The cohort included 49 (52%) patients who had recurrence within 3 mo of the last adjuvant IO dose, whereas 45 (48%) recurred beyond 3 mo. Bone metastases were significantly higher in tumors recurring at <3 mo (10/49, 20%) than those recurring at >3 mo (1/45, 2.2%; p = 0.008). Most patients received 1L vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (VEGF-TT; n = 37, 39%), IO + VEGF-TT (n = 26, 28%), or IO + IO (n = 12, 13%). The remaining underwent local therapy. The median follow-up for the 1L systemic therapy cohort was 15 mo. The 18-mo PFS and OS rates were 45% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-60) and 85% (95% CI: 75-95), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (42%) patients and included skin toxicity (n = 7, 9.2%), fatigue (n = 6, 7.9%), and diarrhea/colitis (n = 4, 5.3%). Limitations included selecting patients from large academic centers and the short follow-up period., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: A subset of patients with recurrent RCC following adjuvant IO respond to systemic therapies, including VEGF-TT and IO-based regimens. Notably, patients with favorable-risk disease may derive more benefit from VEGF-TT than from IO therapies in this setting. Future approaches utilizing radiographic tools and biomarker-based liquid biopsies are warranted to detect occult metastatic disease and identify candidate patients for adjuvant IO therapy., Patient Summary: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). There are limited data on clinical outcomes after the recurrence of RCC tumors following adjuvant immunotherapy. In this study, we find that patients respond to subsequent systemic therapies across different treatment options., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current tobacco smoking is independently associated with decreased overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with targeted monotherapy (VEGF-TKI). Herein, we assess the influence of smoking status on the outcomes of patients with mRCC treated with the current first-line standard of care of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens., Materials and Methods: Real-world data from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were collected retrospectively. Patients with mRCC who received either dual ICI therapy or ICI with VEGF-TKI in the first-line setting were included and were categorized as current, former, or nonsmokers. The primary outcomes were OS, time to treatment failure (TTF), and objective response rate (ORR). OS and TTF were compared between groups using the log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression models. ORR was assessed between the 3 groups using a multivariable logistic regression model., Results: A total of 989 eligible patients were included in the analysis, with 438 (44.3%) nonsmokers, 415 (42%) former, and 136 (13.7%) current smokers. Former smokers were older and included more males, while other baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Median follow-up for OS was 21.2 months. In the univariate analysis, a significant difference between groups was observed for OS (P = .027) but not for TTF (P = .9), with current smokers having the worse 2-year OS rate (62.8% vs 70.8% and 73.1% in never and former smokers, respectively). After adjusting for potential confounders, no significant differences in OS or TTF were observed among the 3 groups. However, former smokers demonstrated a higher ORR compared to never smokers (OR 1.45, P = .02)., Conclusion: Smoking status does not appear to independently influence the clinical outcomes to first-line ICI-based regimens in patients with mRCC. Nonetheless, patient counseling on tobacco cessation remains a crucial aspect of managing patients with mRCC, as it significantly reduces all-cause mortality., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Introduction: Systemic and local therapies for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are often challenging despite the evolution of multimodal cancer therapies in the last decade. In this review, we will focus on recent multidisciplinary approaches for patients with mRCC., Areas Covered: Systemic therapies for patients with mRCC have been garnering attention particularly after the approval of immuno-oncology (IO) agents, including anti-programmed death 1/programmed death-ligand 1. IO combinations have significantly prolonged overall survival in patients with mRCC in the first-line setting. Regarding local therapies, cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has become less common in the post-Cancer du Rein Metastatique Nephrectomie et Antiangiogéniques (CARMENA) trial era, even though CN may still benefit selected patients with mRCC. In addition, metastasis-directed local therapies, namely metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy, particularly for oligo-metastatic lesions or brain metastases, may have a prognostic impact. Several ablative techniques are also evolving while maintaining high local control rates with acceptable safety., Expert Opinion: Multimodal cancer therapies are essential for conquering complex cases of mRCC. Modern systemic therapies including IO-based combination therapy as well as local therapies including CN, metastasectomy, stereotactic radiotherapy, and ablative techniques appear to improve oncologic outcomes of patients with mRCC, although appropriate patient selection is indispensable.

Background: Lymphocytes are closely linked to mechanisms of action of immuno-oncology (IO) agents. We aimed to assess the prognostic significance of absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Patients and Methods: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), patients receiving first-line IO-based combination therapy were analysed. Baseline patient characteristics, objective response rates (ORRs), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) were compared., Results: Of 966 patients included, 195 (20%) had lymphopenia at baseline, and they had a lower ORR (37% versus 45%; P < 0.001), shorter TTNT (10.1 months versus 24.3 months; P < 0.001), and shorter OS (30.4 months versus 48.2 months; P < 0.001). Among 125 patients with lymphopenia at baseline, 52 (42%) experienced ALC recovery at 3 months, and they had longer OS (not reached versus 30.4 months; P = 0.012). On multivariable analysis for OS, lymphopenia was an independent adverse prognostic factor (hazard ratio 1.68; P < 0.001). Incorporation of lymphopenia into the IMDC criteria improved OS prediction accuracy (C-index from 0.688 to 0.707)., Conclusions: Lymphopenia was observed in one-fifth of treatment-naive patients with mRCC and may serve as an indicator of unfavourable oncologic outcomes in the contemporary IO era., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients have been reported to have better outcomes when treated with immunotherapies (IO) compared to targeted therapies (TT). This study aims to evaluate the impact of first-line systemic therapies on survival of mRCC patients with or without sarcomatoid features using real-world data., Methods: Metastatic RCC patients of International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate or high risk, diagnosed from January 2011 to December 2022, treated with first-line systemic therapies, and with histological documentation of the presence or absence of sarcomatoid features in nephrectomy specimens were identified using the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system. Patients were classified by initial treatment: (1) targeted therapy (TT) used alone or (2) immunotherapy (IO)-based systemic therapies used in combination of either IO-IO or IO-TT. The inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores was used to balance for covariates. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the impact of initial treatment received on overall survival (OS)., Key Findings and Limitations: Of the 1202 eligible patients, 791 were treated with TT and 411 with IO combinations. Of the patients, 76% were male, and the majority (91%) had a nephrectomy before systemic therapy. In nonsarcomatoid patients (639 TT and 320 IO patients), treatment with IO was associated with improved OS compared with patients treated with TT (median of 72 vs 48 mo, hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.80, objective response rate [ORR] of 38.5% for IO and 23.5% for TT). In sarcomatoid patients (152 TT and 91 IO patients), treatment with IO was associated with improved OS (median of 48 vs 18 mo, HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26-0.64, ORR of 49.5% for IO and 13.8% for TT). Similar results were observed in patients with synchronous metastatic disease only., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: IO treatment was associated with improved survival in mRCC patients. The magnitude of benefit is increased in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC, consequently, identifying the sarcomatoid status early on could help healthcare providers make a better treatment decision., Patient Summary: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients of International mRCC Database Consortium intermediate and high risk, diagnosed from January 2011 to December 2022, treated with first-line systemic therapies, and with histological documentation of the presence or absence of sarcomatoid features in nephrectomy specimens were identified using the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis). In this study, treatment with immunotherapy was associated to an improved survival and response rates for mRCC patients with and without sarcomatoid features. The magnitude of benefit is increased in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has not yet been well characterized in the era of combination immunotherapy., Objective: To evaluate characteristics and outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who received immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy according to CN status., Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), patients with mRCC who received frontline IO-based combinations were included. Upfront CN was defined as CN up to 3 mo before diagnosis of metastatic disease but before systemic therapy initiation. Deferred CN was defined as CN after systemic therapy initiation., Outcomes Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS) from initiation of systemic therapy was estimated via Cox proportional-hazards regression. A 12-mo landmark time and a time-varying covariate for CN status were used to mitigate potential bias., Results and Limitations: Of the 385 patients eligible for landmark analysis, 24, 182, and 179 underwent deferred CN, upfront CN, and no CN, respectively. Patients in the no CN subgroup were older (63 yr vs 57 yr in the deferred CN subgroup and 60 yr in the upfront CN subgroup; p = 0.001) and a higher proportion had bone metastases (44% vs 26% in the deferred CN subgroup and 23% in the upfront CN subgroup; p < 0.001). A lower proportion of patients in the upfront CN subgroup had IMDC poor risk (23% vs 43% in the no CN subgroup and 47% in the deferred CN subgroup; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, CN receipt was an independent favorable prognostic factor (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.78; p = 0.005). The study is limited by the lack of randomization and its retrospective nature., Conclusions: Despite changes in practice patterns with the advent of novel therapeutic agents, CN may still serve as an effective surgical intervention in carefully selected patients., Patient Summary: For patients with metastatic kidney cancer, surgery to remove the primary tumor was traditionally the treatment of choice, but immunotherapy drugs are now another option for these patients. We analyzed data for contemporary patients with metastatic kidney cancer who received combination immunotherapy as their first treatment. We found that in selected patients receiving immunotherapy, surgery to remove the primary tumor as well can result in better prognosis., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The association between objective imaging response and first line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimes in advanced melanoma remains uncharacterized in routine practice., Methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort analysis of advanced melanoma patients receiving first line ICI therapy from August 2013-May 2020 in Alberta, Canada. The primary outcome was likelihood of RECIST v1.1 assessed objective imaging response between patients receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD1) monotherapy and those receiving combination ipilimumab-nivolumab. Secondary outcomes were identification of baseline characteristics associated with non-response and the association of imaging response with overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment (TTNT)., Results: 198 patients were included, 41/198 (20.7%) had complete response, 86/198 (43.4%) had partial response, 23/198 (11.6%) had stable disease, and 48/198 (24.2%) had progressive disease. Median OS was not reached (NR) (95% CI 49.0-NR) months for complete responders, NR (95%CI 52.9-NR) months for partial responders, 33.7 (95%CI 15.8-NR) months for stable disease, and 6.4 (95%CI 5.2-10.1) months for progressive disease (log-rank p<0.001). Likelihood of objective imaging response remained similar between anti-PD1 monotherapy and ipilimumab-nivolumab groups (OR 1.95 95%CI 0.85-4.63, p=0.121). Elevated LDH level (OR 0.46; 95%CI 0.21-0.98, p=0.043), mucosal primary site (OR 0.14; 95%CI 0.03-0.48, p=0.003), and BRAF V600E mutation status (OR 0.31; 95%CI 0.13-0.72, p=0.007) were associated with decreased likelihood of response., Conclusion: No significant difference in likelihood of imaging response between anti-PD1 monotherapy and combination ipilimumab-nivolumab was observed. Elevated LDH level, mucosal primary site, and BRAF V600E mutation status were associated with decreased likelihood of response. Given that pivotal clinical trials of ipilimumab-nivolumab did not formally compare ipilimumab-nivolumab with nivolumab monotherapy, this work adds context to differences in outcomes when these agents are used. These results may inform treatment selection, and aid in counseling of patients treated with first-line ICI therapy in routine clinical practice settings., Competing Interests: TC has received research funding from Pfizer. DH has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squib, Janssen, Astellas, Ipsen, Eisai and Merck with research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb and Ipsen. VN has acted in an advisory role for, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, EMD Serono, Novotech and has received travel support from Sanofi, Pfizer, EMD Serono. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Gupta, Stukalin, Meyers, Heng, Monzon, Cheng and Navani.)

Aims: To resolve the ongoing controversy surrounding the impact of teratoma (TER) in the primary among patients with metastatic testicular non-seminomatous germ-cell tumours (NSGCT)., Patients and Methods: Using the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) Update Consortium database, we compared the survival probabilities of patients with metastatic testicular GCT with TER (TER) or without TER (NTER) in their primaries corrected for known prognostic factors. Progression-free survival (5y-PFS) and overall survival at 5 years (5y-OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Among 6792 patients with metastatic testicular NSGCT, 3224 (47%) had TER in their primary, and 3568 (53%) did not. In the IGCCCG good prognosis group, the 5y-PFS was 87.8% in TER versus 92.0% in NTER patients (p = 0.0001), the respective 5y-OS were 94.5% versus 96.5% (p = 0.0032). The corresponding figures in the intermediate prognosis group were 5y-PFS 76.9% versus 81.6% (p = 0.0432) in TER and NTER and 5y-OS 90.4% versus 90.9% (p = 0.8514), respectively. In the poor prognosis group, there was no difference, neither in 5y-PFS [54.3% in TER patients versus 55.4% (p = 0.7472) in NTER], nor in 5y-OS [69.4% versus 67.7% (p = 0.3841)]. NSGCT patients with TER had more residual masses (65.3% versus 51.7%, p < 0.0001), and therefore received post-chemotherapy surgery more frequently than NTER patients (46.8% versus 32.0%, p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Teratoma in the primary tumour of patients with metastatic NSGCT negatively impacts on survival in the good and intermediate, but not in the poor IGCCCG prognostic groups., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Silke Gillessen: Personal honoraria: advisory boards from Amgen, MSD; invited speaker ESMO, Swiss group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK), German-speaking European School of Oncology (DESO), Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary oncology (SAMO); travel grant from AstraZeneca, Bayer. Institutional honoraria: advisory boards or in Independent Data Monitoring-/Steering Committees from AAA International, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DAIICHI Sankyo, Innomedica, Ipsen, Meister-ConCept, Modra Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Myriad Genetic, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Roche, Telixpharma; invited speaker SAKK, ASCO GU, ESMO, PeerVoice, Silvio Grasso Consulting, WebMD-Medscape. Patent for a research method for biomarker WO2009138392. Karim Fizazi: Participation to advisory boards and talks for: Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Pfizer, Sanofi. Honoraria go to Gustave Roussy, my institution. Participation to advisory boards with personal honorarium for Arvinas, CureVac, Macrogenics and Orion. Darren Feldman: Consulting: BioNTech, Telix, Renibus, Xencor. Research Funding: Telix, Exelixis, BMS, Decibel. Royalties: UpToDate. All other authors did not declare any conflicts of interest., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation (HDC-ASCT) is standard therapy for metastatic germ cell tumors (mGCTs) in patients whose disease progresses during or after conventional chemotherapy. We conducted a retrospective review of HDC-ASCT in relapsed mGCT patients in the province of Alberta, Canada, over the past two decades., Methods: Patients with mGCTs who received HDC-ASCT at two provincial cancer referral centers from 2000-2018 were identified from institutional databases. Baseline clinical and treatment characteristics were collected, as well as overall survival (OS ) and disease-free survival (DFS). Relevant prognostic variables were analyzed., Results: Forty-three patients were identified. The median age was 28 years (range 19-56). A majority (95%) had non-seminoma histology and testis/retroperitoneal primary (84%). Twenty patients (47%) had poor-risk disease, as per The International Germ Cell Consensus Classification (IGCCC), at start of first-line chemotherapy. HDC-ASCT was used as second-line therapy in 65% of patients, and 58% of ASCT patients received tandem transplants. Median followup after ASCT was 22 months (range 2-181). At last followup, 42% of patients were alive without disease, including 3/7 (43%) of patients with primary mediastinal disease. Two-year and five-year DFS/OS ratios were 44%/65% and 38%/45%, respectively. Median OS and DFS for all patients were 30.0 months (13.3-46.6) and 8.0 months (0.9-15.1), respectively., Conclusions: We found that HDC-ASCT is an effective salvage therapy in mGCT, consistent with existing literature. Patients appeared to benefit regardless of primary site. Although limited by small sample size, we found a numerical difference in DFS and OS between second- and third-line HDC-ASCT and single vs. tandem ASCT.

Patients with brain metastases (BrM) from renal cell carcinoma and their outcomes are not well characterized owing to frequent exclusion of this population from clinical trials. We analyzed data for patients with or without BrM using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC). A total of 389/4799 patients (8.1%) had BrM on initiation of systemic therapy. First-line immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy was associated with longer median overall survival (OS; 32.7 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-not reached) versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy (20.6 mo, 95% CI 15.7-24.5; p = 0.019), as were intensive focal therapies with stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (31.4 mo, 95% CI 22.3-37.5) versus whole-brain radiotherapy alone or no focal therapy (16.5 mo, 95% CI 10.2-21.1; p = 0.028). On multivariable analysis, IO-based regimens (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.97; p = 0.040) and stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.78; p = 0.003) were independently associated with longer OS, as was IMDC favorable or intermediate risk (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.66; p < 0.001). Intensive systemic and focal therapies were associated with better prognosis in this population. Further studies should explore the clinical effectiveness of multimodal strategies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In a large group of patients with advanced kidney cancer, we found that 8.1% had brain metastases when starting systemic therapy. Patients with brain metastases had significantly poorer prognosis than those without brain metastases. Receipt of combination immunotherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, or neurosurgery was associated with longer overall survival., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) secondary to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy reportedly improve overall survival (OS) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, studies have been small and the association between irAE severity and OS remains poorly defined., Objective: To examine the association between irAEs and their severity with OS in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC receiving ICIs., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective observational cohort study included patients with NSCLC receiving ICIs between March 1, 2014, and November 30, 2021, with follow-up until March 31, 2023. Data analysis was completed April 26, 2023. The Alberta Immunotherapy Database, a provincial, multicenter cohort, was used to capture data from patients receiving ICIs in Alberta, Canada. Participants included 803 patients 18 years or older who received at least 1 cycle of ICI (alone or with chemotherapy), agnostic to treatment line., Exposure: Developing an irAE mandating delay or discontinuation of ICI therapy and/or systematic corticosteroids for management of toxic effects (hereinafter referred to as clinically meaningful irAEs)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was association between irAEs and OS according to Kaplan-Meier analysis. Clinically meaningful irAEs were identified. Patients with poor prognosis (survival <3 months) who may have died prior to irAE development were excluded from OS analysis, mitigating immortal time bias. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analyses ascertained variables associated with OS., Results: Among the 803 patients included in the analysis, the median age of patients with irAEs was 69.7 (IQR, 63.1-75.2) years and the median age of those without irAEs was 67.5 (IQR, 60.4-73.3) years, with comparable sex distribution (139 of 295 men [47.1%] and 156 of 295 women [52.9%] with irAEs vs 254 of 505 men [50.3%] and 251 of 505 women [49.7%] without irAEs). Mitigating immortal time bias (n = 611), irAEs were associated with OS (median OS with irAEs, 23.7 [95% CI, 19.3-29.1] months; median OS without irAEs, 9.8 [95% CI, 8.7-11.4] months; P < .001). No OS difference was associated with treatment in hospital vs as outpatients for an irAE (median OS, 20.8 [95% CI, 11.7-30.6] vs 25.6 [95% CI, 20.1-29.8] months; P = .33). Developing irAEs remained associated with OS in the total cohort after Cox proportional hazards regression with known prognostic characteristics (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.40-0.70]; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 803 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC receiving ICIs, developing a clinically meaningful irAE was associated with improved OS. This association was not compromised by hospitalization for severe toxic effects. Whether and how ICI therapy resumption after an irAE is associated with OS warrants further study.

Introduction: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify evidence for use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based therapy., Methods: This was a PRISMA-standard systematic literature review; registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255568). Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (January 28, 2021; updated September 13, 2022) to identify publications reporting efficacy/effectiveness and safety/tolerability evidence for anti-VEGF treatment in patients with RCC who had received prior CPI therapy., Results: Of 2,639 publications screened, 48 were eligible and featured 2,759 patients treated in trials and 2,209 in real-world studies (RWS). Most patients with available data were treated with anti-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens (trials: 93 %; RWS: 100 %), most commonly cabozantinib, which accounted for 46 % of trial and 62 % of RWS patients in publications with available data. Collectively, there was consistent evidence of anti-VEGF treatment activity after prior CPI therapy. Activity was reported for all anti-VEGF regimens and regardless of prior CPI-based regimen. No new safety signals were detected for subsequent anti-VEGF therapy; no studies suggested increased immune-related adverse events associated with prior CPI therapy. The results were limited by data quality; study heterogeneity prohibited meta-analyses., Conclusion: Based on the available data (most commonly for cabozantinib), anti-VEGF therapy appears to be a rational treatment choice in patients with RCC who have progressed despite prior CPI-based therapy. Results from ongoing trials of combination anti-VEGF plus CPI regimen post prior CPI therapy trials will contribute more definitive evidence., Plain Language Summary: Anticancer treatments that work by reducing levels of a substance in the body called Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor are known as anti-VEGF drugs. Reducing VEGF levels helps to reduce blood supply to tumors, which can slow the speed at which the cancer grows. Some other types of anticancer drugs that help the immune system to fight cancer cells are called checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we looked at published studies that investigated how anti-VEGF drugs work, and what side effects they cause, in people who have already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors for a type of kidney cancer called renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to summarize the available evidence to help doctors decide how best to use anti-VEGF drugs in these patients. We found 48 studies that included almost 5,000 patients. The results of the studies showed that anti-VEGF drugs have anticancer effects in people with renal cell carcinoma who had already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors. All of the VEGF-targeting drugs had anticancer effects, irrespective of what checkpoint inhibitor treatment people had received before. There were different amounts of evidence available for the different anti-VEGF drugs. The anti-VEGF cabozantinib had the largest amount of evidence. Importantly, previous checkpoint inhibitor treatment did not seem to affect the number or type of side-effects associated with anti-VEGF drugs. Results from ongoing, well-designed studies will be helpful to confirm these results. Our findings may be useful for doctors considering using anti-VEGF drugs in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have received checkpoint inhibitor treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: VN reports consulting fees from Ipsen; fees or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer and Sanofi; travel expenses from Sanofi, EMD, and Serono; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pfizer and AstraZeneca. DYCH reports fees or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, Merck KGA, Novartis, and Pfizer; and consulting fees from Bristol Meyers Squibb, Exelixis, Eisai, and Ipsen.

Background: Active surveillance after orchiectomy is the preferred management in clinical stage I (CSI) germ-cell tumours (GCT) associated with a 15 to 30% relapse rate., Patients and Methods: In the IGCCCG Update database, we compared the outcomes of gonadal disseminated GCT relapsing from initial CSI to outcomes of patients with de novo metastatic GCT., Results: A total of 1014 seminoma (Sem) [298 (29.4%) relapsed from CSI, 716 (70.6%) de novo] and 3103 non-seminoma (NSem) [626 (20.2%) relapsed from CSI, 2477 (79.8%) de novo] were identified. Among Sem, no statistically significant differences in PFS and OS were found between patients relapsing from CSI and de novo metastatic disease [5-year progression-free survival (5y-PFS) 87.6% versus 88.5%; 5-year overall survival (5y-OS) 93.2% versus 96.1%). Among NSem, PFS and OS were higher overall in relapsing CSI patients (5y-PFS 84.6% versus 80.0%; 5y-OS 93.3% versus 88.7%), but there were no differences within the same IGCCCG prognostic groups (HR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.70-1.12). Relapses in the intermediate or poor prognostic groups occurred in 11/298 (4%) Sem and 112/626 (18%) NSem., Conclusion: Relapsing CSI GCT patients expect similar survival compared to de novo metastatic patients of the same ICCCCG prognostic group. Intermediate and poor prognosis relapses from initial CSI expose patients to unnecessary toxicity from more intensive treatments., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

As many new systemic therapy options have recently emerged, the standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is gradually changing. The increasing complexity of treatment options requires more personalized treatment strategies. This evolution in the systemic therapy landscape comes with a need for validated stratification models that facilitate decision making and patient counseling for clinicians through a risk-adapted approach. This article summarizes the available evidence on risk stratification and prognostic models for mRCC, including the International mRCC Database Consortium and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center models, as well as their association with clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background : The majority of melanoma is diagnosed in individuals between 55 and 84 years old. Current data varied in reporting differences in survival outcomes amongst different age groups. Methods: A retrospective, multi-center, provincial cohort database was used to investigate the relationship between age (<65 or ≥65 years old) and overall survival. Patients must have had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic melanoma and had to have received at least one cycle of immunotherapy (single agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or combination ipilimumab plus nivolumab). Results: From August 2013 to May 2020, we identified 497 patients (median age = 64 [range 12-96 years]; 65.2% men; 36.4% with a BRAF mutation (V600E and V600K)). Of these, 260 were < 65 years old, and 237 were ≥65 years old. A total of 39.1% of the patients in the younger cohort received combination ICI compared with 10.2% in the older cohort, and the difference was statistically significant. Median survival amongst individuals aged ≥65 years old was shorter compared to individuals <65 years old, with a median overall survival of 17.1 (95% CI 12.3-22.9 months) months and 22.2 months (95% CI 18.7-33.8 months), respectively ( p = 0.04), at a median follow-up of 34.4 months (range: 1.84-81.4 months). The survival difference was present in the cutaneous melanoma cohort where median OS was 18.2 months (95% CI 12.3-30.4 months) in patients ≥65 years old and 23.8 months (95% CI 19.2-48.2 months) in patients <65 years old, p = 0.04. There were no significant differences by age in the non-cutaneous melanoma cohort. A combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with an improved overall survival hazard ratio of 0.48 (95% CI 0.36-0.65) as compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy alone ( p < 0.001). In the cutaneous cohort treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy ( n = 306), no significant differences were seen with median OS at 16.1 months (95% CI 11.4-25.7 months) in patients ≥65 years old and 17.1 months (95% CI 12.0-22.2 months) in patients <65 years old ( p = 0.84). Tumor response to anti-PD-1 was higher in the older patients compared with the response in younger patients with cutaneous melanoma. Conclusions: Older melanoma patients have similar survival compared with younger patients after receiving the same treatment with anti-PD-1 monotherapy. The superior survival observed in the younger patients is possibly related to the higher utilization of combination ICI. Tumor response to immunotherapy is superior in older patients with cutaneous melanoma; however, younger patients may improve their survival by using combination ICI.

Background: Risk stratification tools for patients with advanced melanoma (AM) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are lacking. We identified a new prognostic model associated with overall survival (OS)., Patients and Methods: A total of 318 treatment naïve patients with AM receiving ICI were collected from a multi-centre retrospective cohort study. LASSO Cox regression identified independent prognostic factors associated with OS. Model validation was carried out on 500 iterations of bootstrapped samples. Harrel's C-index was calculated and internally validated to outline the model's discriminatory performance. External validation was carried out in 142 advanced melanoma patients receiving ICI in later lines., Results: High white blood cell count (WBC), high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), low albumin, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥1, and the presence of liver metastases were included in the model. Patients were parsed into 3 risk groups: favorable (0-1 factors) OS of 52.9 months, intermediate (2-3 factors) OS 13.0 months, and poor (≥4 factors) OS 2.7 months. The C-index of the model from the discovery cohort was 0.69. External validation in later-lines (N = 142) of therapy demonstrated a c-index of 0.65., Conclusions: Liver metastases, low albumin, high LDH, high WBC, and ECOG≥1 can be combined into a prognostic model for AM patients treated with ICI., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Paradigm shifts in kidney cancer management have led to higher health care spending. Here, total and per capita health care spending and primary drivers of change in health expenditures for kidney cancer in the United States between 1996 and 2016 are estimated., Methods: Public databases developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation for the Disease Expenditure Project were used. The prevalence of kidney cancer was estimated from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Changes in health care spending on kidney cancer were assessed by joinpoint regression and expressed as annual percent changes (APCs)., Results: In 2016, total health care spending on kidney cancer was $3.42 billion (95% CI, $2.91 billion to $3.89 billion) compared with $1.18 billion (95% CI, $1.07 billion to $1.31 billion) in 1996. Per capita spending had two inflection points in 2005 and 2008, close to the approval years of targeted therapies, which corresponded to APCs of +2.9% (95% CI, +2.3% to +3.6%; p < .001) per year, 1996-2005; +9.2% (95% CI, +3.4% to +15.2%; p = .004) per year, 2005-2008; and +3.1% (95% CI, +2.2% to +3.9%; p < .001) per year, 2008-2016. Inpatient care was the largest contributor to health expenditures, which accounted for $1.56 billion (95% CI, $1.19 billion to $1.95 billion) in 2016. Price and intensity of care was the primary driver of increased health expenditures, whereas service utilization was the primary driver of reduced health expenditures., Conclusions: Prevalence-adjusted health care spending on kidney cancer continues to rise in the United States, which is primarily attributable to inpatient care and driven by the price and intensity of care over time., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The combination of immuno-oncology (IO) agents ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) and vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapies (VEGF-TT) combined with IO (IO-VEGF) are current standard of care first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Objective: To establish real-world clinical benchmarks for IO combination therapies based on the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients with mRCC who received first-line IPI-NIVO, IO-VEGF, or VEGF-TT from 2002 to 2021 were identified using the IMDC database and stratified according to IMDC risk groups., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and treatment duration (TD) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between IMDC risk groups within each treatment cohort by the log-rank test. The overall response rate (ORR) was calculated by physician assessment of the best overall response. The primary outcome was OS at 18 mo., Results and Limitations: In total, 728 patients received IPI-NIVO, 282 IO-VEGF, and 7163 VEGF-TT. The median follow-up times for patients remaining alive were 14.3 mo for IPI-NIVO, 14.9 mo IO-VEGF, and 34.4 mo for VEGF-TT. OS at 18 mo for favorable, intermediate, and poor risk was, respectively, 90%, 78%, and 50% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 93%, 83%, and 74% for IO-VEGF; and 84%, 64%, and 28% for VEGF-TT. ORRs in favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups were 41.3%, 40.6%, and 33.0% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 60.3%, 56.8%, and 40.9% for IO-VEGF; and 39.3%, 33.5%, and 20.9% for VEGF-TT, respectively. The IMDC model stratified patients into statistically distinct risk groups for the three endpoints of OS, TTNT, and TD within each treatment cohort. Limitations of this study were the retrospective design and short follow-up., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the IMDC model continues to risk stratify patients with mRCC treated with contemporary first-line IO combination therapies and provided real-world survival benchmarks., Patient Summary: The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model continues to stratify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving modern combination treatments in the real-world setting., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Treatment-free survival (TFS) represents an alternative time-to-event end point, accurately characterizing time spent free of systemic therapy, providing a more patient-centric view of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimens. There remains a lack of studies evaluating TFS outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma who are receiving immunotherapy, especially outside of the clinical trial setting., Objective: To evaluate TFS outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy outside of a clinical trial setting., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy between August 1, 2013, and May 31, 2020, was conducted in Alberta, Canada. Data analysis was performed in August 2022., Exposures: Patients received standard-of-care, first-line ICI therapy treatment regimens including single-agent nivolumab, single-agent pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab-nivolumab., Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment-free survival was defined as the difference in the 36-month restricted mean survival time between 2 conventional survival end points: (1) time from treatment initiation to ICI cessation, death, or censoring at last follow-up and (2) time from treatment initiation to subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, death, or censoring at last follow-up., Results: A total of 316 patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line nivolumab (n = 51; median age, 66 years [IQR, 56-78 years]; 31 men [60.8%]), pembrolizumab (n = 158; median age, 69 years [IQR, 60-78 years]; 112 men [70.9%]), or combination nivolumab-ipilimumab (n = 107; median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-60 years]; 72 men [67.3%]) were included. Treatment groups were similar with regard to sex, primary tumor location, and presence of metastasis, although patients receiving combination nivolumab-ipilimumab had a lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, were younger, and were more likely to be BRAF V600E positive than those receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy. The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.8-16.0 months]) compared with nivolumab (8.9 months [95% CI, 4.4-13.5 months]) and pembrolizumab (11.1 months [95% CI, 8.5-13.8 months]). During the 36-month follow-up interval, patients treated with nivolumab-ipilimumab spent 34.4% of their time (12.4 of 36 months) not receiving systemic anticancer treatments compared with 30.8% (11.1 of 36 months) and 24.7% (8.9 of 36 months) of the time for the pembrolizumab and nivolumab treatment groups, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy suggests that TFS represents a patient-centric, informative end point. Patients treated with combination nivolumab-ipilimumab spent more time alive and free from systemic anticancer therapy than those treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy alone.

Background: The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown., Methods: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization., Results: Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing., Conclusions: Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Introduction/background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to identify baseline characteristics, that are prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with NSCLC treated with ICI monotherapy, in order to derive the Lung Immune Therapy Evaluation (LITE) risk, a prognostic model., Materials and Methods: Multi-center observational cohort study of patients with advanced NSCLC that received ≥1 dose of ICI monotherapy. The training set (n=342) consisted of patients with NSCLC who received first line ICI. The test set (n=153) used for external validation was a discrete cohort of patients who received second line ICI. 20 candidate prognostic factors were examined. Penalized Cox regression was used for variable selection. Multiple imputation was used to address missingness., Results: Three baseline characteristics populated the final model: ECOG (0, 1 or ≥2), lactate dehydrogenase>upper limit of normal, and derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio ≥3. Patients were parsed into 3 risk groups; favorable (n=146, risk score 0-1), intermediate (n=101, risk score 2) and poor (n=95, risk score ≥3). The c-statistic of the training cohort was 0.702 and 0.694 after bootstrapping. The test cohort c-statistic was 0.664. The median OS for favorable, intermediate and poor LITE risk were; 28.3 months, 9.1 months and 2.1 months respectively. Improving LITE risk group was associated with improved OS, intermediate vs favorable HR 2.08 (95%CI 1.46-2.97, P < .001); poor vs favorable HR 5.21 (95%CI 3.69-7.34, P < .001)., Conclusion: A simple prognostic model, utilizing accessible clinical data, can discriminate survival outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Several recent randomized trials evaluated the impact of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy on post-surgical outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), with disparate results. The objective of this consensus statement is to provide data-driven guidance regarding the use of ICIs after complete resection of clear-cell RCC in a Canadian context., Methods: An expert panel of genitourinary medical oncologists, urologic oncologists, and radiation oncologists with expertise in RCC management was convened in a dedicated session during the 2022 Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum in Toronto, Canada. Topic statements on the management of patients after surgery for RCC, including counselling, risk stratification, indications for medical oncology referral, appropriate followup, eligibility and management for adjuvant ICIs, as well as treatment options for patients with recurrence who received adjuvant immunotherapy, were discussed. Participants were asked to vote if they agreed or disagreed with each statement. Consensus was achieved if greater than 75% of participants agreed with the topic statement., Results: A total of 22 RCC experts voted on 14 statements. Consensus was achieved on all topic statements. The panel felt patients with clear-cell RCC at increased risk of recurrence after surgery, as per the Keynote-564 group definitions, should be counselled about recurrence risk by a urologist, should be informed about the potential role of adjuvant ICI systemic therapy, and be offered referral to discuss risks and benefits with a medical oncologist. The panel felt that one year of pembrolizumab is currently the only regimen that should be considered if adjuvant therapy is selected. Panelists emphasized current opinions are based on disease-free survival given the available results. Significant uncertainty regarding the benefit and harms of adjuvant therapy remains, primarily due to a lack of consistent benefit observed across similar trials of adjuvant ICI-based therapies and immature overall survival (OS) data., Conclusions: This consensus document provides guidance from Canadian RCC experts regarding the potential role of ICI-based adjuvant systemic therapy after surgery. This rapidly evolving field requires frequent evidence-based re-evaluation.

Purpose: Clinical trials have demonstrated higher complete response rates in the immuno-oncology-based combination arms than in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor arms in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to characterize real-world patients who experienced complete response to the contemporary first-line therapies., Materials and Methods: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium, response-evaluable patients who received frontline immuno-oncology-based combination therapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy were analyzed. Baseline characteristics of patients and post-landmark overall survival were compared based on best overall response, as per RECIST 1.1., Results: A total of 52 (4.6%) of 1,126 and 223 (3.0%) of 7,557 patients experienced complete response to immuno-oncology-based and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies, respectively ( P = . 005). An adjusted odds ratio for complete response achieved by immuno-oncology-based combination therapy (vs tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy) was 1.56 (95% CI 1.11-2.17; P = . 009). Among patients who experienced complete response, the immuno-oncology-based cohort had a higher proportion of non-clear cell histology (15.9% and 4.7%; P = . 016), sarcomatoid dedifferentiation (29.8% and 13.5%; P = . 014), and multiple sites of metastases (80.4% and 50.0%; P < . 001) than the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohort. Complete response was independently associated with post-landmark overall survival benefit in both the immuno-oncology-based and tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohorts, giving respective adjusted hazard ratios of 0.17 (95% CI 0.04-0.72; P = . 016) and 0.28 (95% CI 0.21-0.38; P < . 001)., Conclusions: The complete response rate was not as high in the real-world population as in the clinical trial population. Among those who experienced complete response, several adverse clinicopathological features were more frequently observed in the immuno-oncology-based cohort than in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohort. Complete response was an indicator of favorable overall survival.

Background: There is a paucity of data on the safety of cabozantinib use in combination with radiotherapy., Objective: To report the practice patterns, safety, and efficacy of cabozantinib with radiotherapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Design, Setting, and Participants: An international multicenter retrospective study was conducted. Patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib at any line of therapy and who received radiotherapy between 30 d prior to the start date of cabozantinib and 30 d following discontinuation of cabozantinib, from 2014 to 2020, were included. Concurrent use was defined as the use of cabozantinib on radiotherapy treatment days during any course of radiotherapy., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary outcomes of interest were the rate of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurring within 90 d of receipt of radiotherapy. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization rate and patterns of cabozantinib and radiotherapy use. Baseline characteristics and AEs were presented descriptively., Results and Limitations: A total of 127 consecutive patients were included. Most patients had clear cell histology (88%), had International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk disease (57%), and had received at least one prior line of therapy (93%). Of 127 patients, 67 (53%) received concurrent cabozantinib with radiotherapy, while the remaining held cabozantinib on radiotherapy days. Overall, grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 6.3% (n = 8/127) of patients. No grade 5 events were observed. In patients treated with conventional palliative radiotherapy (n = 88), the rate of grade 3-4 AEs in those who had concurrent versus those who had nonconcurrent cabozantinib was 6.3% (n = 3/48) versus 5.0% (n = 2/40). No patient was hospitalized due to radiotherapy-related toxicity. In patients treated with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR; n = 50), the rate of grade 3-4 AEs in those who had concurrent versus those who had nonconcurrent cabozantinib was 3.6% (n = 1/28) versus 9.1% (n = 2/22). One patient in the nonconcurrent group was hospitalized due to muscle weakness suspected to be related to associated vasogenic edema 19 d after SABR for multiple brain metastases., Conclusions: In this real-world study of patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib, 53% of patients received radiotherapy concurrently, with few grade 3-4 AEs reported within 90 d of receiving radiotherapy. The use of radiotherapy and cabozantinib requires a risk-benefit assessment of patient and disease characteristics to optimize therapy regimens., Patient Summary: Our study reports the real-world experience of using radiotherapy in patients receiving cabozantinib for metastatic kidney cancer. Over half of the patients continued taking cabozantinib while receiving radiotherapy, and few patients developed serious side effects. The combined use of radiotherapy and cabozantinib requires a careful risk-benefit assessment to achieve optimal treatment outcomes., (Copyright © 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Brain metastases (BM) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been reported to be present in up to 25% of patients diagnosed with mRCC. There is limited published literature evaluating the role of routine intra-cranial imaging for the screening of asymptomatic BM in mRCC., Aims: To evaluate the potential utility of routine intra-cranial imaging, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to characterize the outcomes of mRCC patients who presented with asymptomatic BM, as compared to symptomatic BM., Methods and Results: The Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database was used to identify mRCC patients diagnosed with BM. This cohort was divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of BM symptoms. Details regarding patient demographics, disease characteristics, systemic treatments, BM characteristics and survival outcomes were extracted. Statistical analysis was through chi-square tests, analysis of variance, and Kaplan-Meier method to characterize survival outcomes. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. A total of 267 mRCC patients with BM were identified of which 106 (40%) presented with asymptomatic disease. The majority of patients presented with multiple (i.e., >1) BM (75%) with no significant differences noted in number of BM or BM-directed therapy received in symptomatic, as compared to asymptomatic BM patients. Median [95% confidence interval (CI)] overall survival (OS) from mRCC diagnosis was 42 months (95% CI: 32-62) for patients with asymptomatic BM, and 39 months (95% CI: 29-48) with symptomatic BM (p = 0.10). OS from time of BM diagnosis was 28 months (95% CI: 18-42) for the asymptomatic BM group, as compared to 13 months (95% CI: 10-21) in the symptomatic BM group (p = 0.04)., Conclusions: Given a substantial proportion of patients may present with asymptomatic BM, limiting intra-cranial imaging to patients with symptomatic BM, may be associated with a missed opportunity for timely diagnosis and treatment. The utility of routine intra-cranial imaging in patients with renal cell carcinoma, warrants further prospective evaluation., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Landmark trials testing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced NSCLC are difficult to extrapolate to real-world practice given the exclusion of patients with poor (i.e., ≥2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS). We sought to evaluate the impact of ECOG PS on clinical outcomes and health care utilization in patients with NSCLC treated with ICIs in real-world practice., Methods: Patients with advanced NSCLC who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or nivolumab were retrospectively identified from the Alberta Immunotherapy Database. The primary outcome was median overall survival, as stratified by ECOG PS. Secondary outcomes included median time-to-treatment failure and metrics of health care utilization, including emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death in hospital., Results: A total of 790 patients were included, with 29.2% having poor ECOG PS at initiation of ICI. These patients had significantly lower median overall survival (3.3 versus 13.4 mo) and median time-to-treatment failure (1.4 versus 4.9 mo) compared with those with favorable ECOG PS ( p < 0.0001 for both outcomes). Patients with poor ECOG PS were also more likely to present to the emergency department, be admitted to the hospital, and die in the hospital during their first admission (risk ratio = 1.6, 2.3-2.7, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Patients with NSCLC with poor ECOG PS treated with ICI had significantly worse survival outcomes and were significantly more likely to use health care services than those with favorable ECOG PS. The large proportion of patients with poor ECOG PS further justifies the urgent need for randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of ICI in this high-risk population., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: There are limited data evaluating the activity of cabozantinib (CABO) as second line (2L) therapy post standard of care ipilimumab-nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) or immuno-oncology(IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (VEGFi) combinations (IOVE)., Materials and Methods: Using the IMDC database, we sought to identify the objective response rate, time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) of 2L CABO after IPI-NIVO, IOVE combinations, pazopanib or sunitinib (PAZ/SUN) or other first line (1L) therapies. Multivariable Cox regression, adjusted for underlying differences in IMDC groups, was used to compare differences in OS for 2L CABO based on preceding therapy., Results: Three hundred and forty-six patients received 2L CABO (78 post IPI NIVO, 46 post IOVE, 161 post PAZ/SUN, 61 post Other). Of the entire cohort, 12.6%, 62.6%, and 24.8% were IMDC favourable, intermediate, and poor risk, respectively. Patients that received 1L IPI-NIVO had a median OS of 21.4 (95% CI, 12.1 - NE [Not evaluable]) months compared to 15.7 (95% CI, 9.3 - NE) months in 1L IOVE and 20.7 (95% CI, 15.6 - 35.6) months in 1L PAZ/SUN, P = .28. Median TTF from the initiation of 2L CABO in the overall population was 7.6 (95% CI, 6.6 - 9.0) months. We were unable to detect a significant difference in 2L CABO OS based on type of 1L therapy received: 1L IPI-NIVO (reference group) vs. 1L IOVE HR 1.73 (95% CI, 0.83 - 3.62 P = .14), 1L PAZ/SUN 1.16 (95% CI, 0.67 - 2.00 P = .60), however given the retrospective observational nature of this work a lack of sufficient power may contribute to this., Conclusion: In a large real world dataset, we identified clinically meaningful activity of 2L CABO after all evaluated contemporary 1L therapies, irrespective of whether the 1L regimen included a VEGFi. These are real world benchmarks with which to counsel our patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors is unclear., Objective: To evaluate the relationship between upfront CN and clinical outcomes in the setting of mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy., Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium, we retrospectively identified patients diagnosed with de novo mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS) was compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regressions adjusting for known prognostic factors., Results and Limitations: We identified a total of 4639 eligible patients with mRCC. Among the 4202 patients treated with targeted therapy and 437 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2326 (55%) and 234 (54%) patients received upfront CN prior to treatment start. In multivariable analyses, CN was associated with significantly better OS in both the immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.90, p = 0.013) and the targeted therapy treatment (HR: 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78, p < 0.001) group. There was no difference in OS benefit of CN between the immune checkpoint inhibitor and targeted therapy treatment groups (interaction p = 0.6). Limitations include selection of patients from large academic centers and the retrospective nature of the study., Conclusions: Upfront CN is associated with a significant OS benefit in selected patients treated by either immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy, and still has a role in selected patients in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors., Patient Summary: Before effective systemic therapies were available for metastatic kidney cancer, surgical removal of the primary (kidney) tumor was the mainstay of treatment. The role of removing the primary tumor has recently been called into question given that more effective systemic therapies have become available. In this study, we find that removal of the primary kidney tumor still has a benefit for selected patients treated with highly effective modern systemic therapies, including targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors., (Copyright © 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) due to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) have been shown to be positively associated with survival. Among patients with metastatic melanoma, evidence supporting this association has been conflicting, while ipilimumab-nivolumab combination ICB has been examined only in small clinical cohorts., Objective: To examine the association between irAEs and survival among patients with metastatic melanoma, in particular for those receiving combination ICB., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort of 492 consecutive patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICB at 2 tertiary and 4 regional cancer centers in Alberta, Canada, from August 1, 2013, to May 31, 2020, was observed. Patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic melanoma agnostic to primary site, who received 1 or more doses of an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 agent as single or combination ICB. Clinically significant irAEs requiring systemic corticosteroids and/or treatment delay were captured. To minimize immortal time bias, only patients surviving 12 weeks after ICB initiation were included in survival analyses. Statistical analysis was conducted on December 10, 2021., Exposures: Development of irAEs requiring systemic corticosteroids and/or treatment delay., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), with the association of irAE development with OS assessed via Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. The association of hospitalization for irAEs and ICB resumption after irAE with OS was examined., Results: Among 492 patients, the median age of those with irAEs was 61.8 years (IQR, 52.9-72.1 years), and the median age of those without irAEs was 65.5 years (IQR, 56.5-76.9 years), while sex distribution was comparable (137 of 198 men [69.2%] with irAEs vs 183 of 294 men [62.2%] without irAEs). There was an association between irAEs and OS both in the overall cohort (with irAEs: median OS, 56.3 months [95% CI, 38.2 months to not evaluable] vs without irAEs: median OS, 18.5 months [95% CI, 14.4-23.2 months]; P < .001) and in the 124 patients (25.2%) receiving combination ICB (with irAEs: median OS, 56.2 months [95% CI, 52.2 months to not evaluable] vs without irAEs: median OS, 19.0 months [95% CI, 6.6 months to not evaluable]; P < .001). Hospitalization for irAE did not alter this positive association with OS compared with outpatient treatment (median OS, not evaluable [95% CI, 31.5 months to not evaluable] vs median OS, 52.2 months [95% CI, 35.2 months to not evaluable]; P = .53), while resumption of ICB was associated with longer OS than not resuming ICB (median, 56.3 months [95% CI, 40.8 months to not evaluable] vs 31.5 months [95% CI, 21.0 months to not evaluable]; P = .009). A favorable independent association of irAEs with OS was confirmed in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio for death, 0.382 [95% CI, 0.254-0.576]; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests an association between irAEs and OS for patients with metastatic melanoma, including those treated with combination ICB and those with severe irAEs requiring hospitalization. The potential benefit associated with ICB resumption after irAEs warrants further investigation.

Brain metastases are a challenging manifestation of renal cell carcinoma. We have a limited understanding of brain metastasis tumor and immune biology, drivers of resistance to systemic treatment, and their overall poor prognosis. Current data support a multimodal treatment strategy with radiation treatment and/or surgery. Nonetheless, the optimal approach for the management of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma remains unclear. To improve patient care, the authors sought to standardize practical management strategies. They performed an unstructured literature review and elaborated on the current management strategies through an international group of experts from different disciplines assembled via the network of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition. Experts from different disciplines were administered a survey to answer questions related to current challenges and unmet patient needs. On the basis of the integrated approach of literature review and survey study results, the authors built algorithms for the management of single and multiple brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The literature review, consensus statements, and algorithms presented in this report can serve as a framework guiding treatment decisions for patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:454-489., (© 2022 The Authors. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) is approved for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one or more prior antiangiogenic therapies., Objective: To assess whether a lower starting dose of lenvatinib has comparable efficacy with improved tolerability for patients with advanced RCC treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus., Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 global trial was conducted in patients with advanced clear cell RCC and disease progression after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (prior anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 therapy permitted)., Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the 14- or 18-mg lenvatinib starting dose, both in combination with everolimus 5 mg/d. Patients in the 14-mg arm were to be uptitrated to lenvatinib 18 mg at cycle 2, day 1, barring intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) requiring dose reduction occurring in the first 28-d cycle., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) as of week 24 (ORR wk24 ); the noninferiority threshold of the 14- versus 18-mg arm was p ≤ 0.045. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients with intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs within 24 wk of randomization., Results and Limitations: The ORR wk24 for the 14-mg arm (32% [95% confidence interval {CI} 25-39]) was not noninferior to the ORR wk24 in the 18-mg arm (35% [95% CI 27-42]; odds ratio: 0.88; 90% CI 0.59-1.32; p = 0.3). The proportion of intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs was similar between the two arms (14 mg, 83% vs 18 mg, 80%; p = 0.5). The secondary endpoints of overall ORR, progression-free survival, and overall survival numerically favored the 18-mg arm. A limitation of this study was that the study design did not allow for a full comparison of progression-free survival between treatment arms., Conclusions: The study findings support the approved dosing regimen of lenvatinib 18 mg plus everolimus 5 mg daily for patients with advanced RCC., Patient Summary: In this report, we examined two doses of lenvatinib (the approved 18-mg dose and a lower dose of 14 mg) in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma to determine whether the lower dose (which was increased to the approved 18-mg dose after the first treatment cycle) could improve safety without affecting efficacy. The results showed that the efficacy of the lower lenvatinib dose (14 mg) was not the same as that of the approved (18 mg) dose, although safety results were similar, so the approved lenvatinib 18-mg dose should still be used., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have demonstrated impressive activity in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and have become standard treatment options for patients with advanced disease. Data supporting the effectiveness of ICI-based therapy in advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) is more limited., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) to evaluate the outcomes of patients with advanced nccRCC. Patients were classified into three groups based on first-line therapy: ICI-based therapy (monotherapy or combination), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor monotherapy, or mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor monotherapy. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were time to treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR). We used the Kaplan-Meier method to compare OS and TTF between treatment groups and Cox proportional hazards models to adjust for prognostic covariates., Results: We identified a total of 1145 patients with metastatic nccRCC. The most common subtype was papillary RCC (54.9%). For first-line therapy, 74.3% received VEGF monotherapy, 15% received mTOR monotherapy, and 10.7% received ICI-based therapy. Median OS in the ICI group was 28.6 months, versus 16.4 months in the VEGF group and 12.2 months in the mTOR group. Median TTF in the ICI group was 6.9 months, versus 5.0 months in the VEGF group and 3.9 months in the mTOR group. ORR was 27.2% in the ICI group, 14.5% in the VEGF group, and 9% in the mTOR group. After adjusting for the IMDC risk group, histological subtype, and age, the hazard ratio for OS was 0.57 (95% CI 0.42-0.78, p < 0.0001) for ICI versus VEGF and 0.50 (95% CI 0.36-0.71, p < 0.0001) for ICI versus mTOR., Conclusions: In advanced nccRCC, first-line ICI-based treatment appears to be associated with improved OS compared to VEGF and mTOR targeted therapy. These results should be confirmed in prospective randomised trials., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) represents 15% of RCCs but has no indicated therapies, with limited biomarker-based data to inform targeted treatment. MET alterations may be key; > 80% of PRCC tumours show MET upregulation. The objective of this study was to assess MET status in PRCC and its impact on clinical outcomes., Methods: This retrospective, observational study included patients with locally advanced/metastatic PRCC from three international registries. MET status was determined retrospectively by next generation sequencing (NGS) of archival tissue. MET-driven was defined as MET and/or hepatocyte growth factor amplification, chromosome 7 gain, and/or MET kinase domain mutations. Objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by MET status using a Cox proportional hazards model., Results: Of 308 patients, 305 received first-line treatment; most commonly sunitinib (n = 208; 68%), then everolimus (n = 40; 13%). Of 179 patients with valid NGS results, 38% had MET-driven and 49% MET-independent tumours (13% unevaluable). In the MET-driven versus MET-independent subgroups, respectively, of sunitinib-treated patients, median PFS was numerically longer, though not statistically significantly; PFS: 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.4-13.2) versus 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.3-7.4), hazard ratio (HR) = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.41-1.08. There was no difference between the OS of each subgroup., Conclusions: MET-driven PRCC may respond to targeted agents. However, the presence of MET alterations did not appear to be predictive for outcomes in response to current therapies, which are not biomarker-driven, compared with MET-independent tumours., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a common malignancy with approximately 30% of cases diagnosed at the advanced or metastatic stage. While single-agent vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy has been a mainstay of treatment, data from multiple phase III trials assessing first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations have demonstrated a significant survival benefit., Methods: A systematic search of the published and presented literature was performed to identify phase III trials assessing ICI combination regimens in RCC using search terms 'immune checkpoint inhibitors' AND 'renal cell carcinoma,' AND 'advanced'., Results: Six phase III trials showed significant benefits for ICI combinations compared with sunitinib. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly improved overall survival [OS; median, 47.0 versus 26.6 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.58-0.81, p  < 0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS; median 11.6 versus 8.3 months, HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.61-0.87, p  = 0.0004) in International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate and poor-risk patients. OS was also significantly improved for ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations regardless of risk, including pembrolizumab plus either axitinib (HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.60-0.88, p  < 0.001) or lenvatinib (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.49-0.88, p  = 0.005) and nivolumab plus cabozantinib (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.50-0.87, p  = 0.003). No new safety signals were identified., Conclusions: Phase III first-line trials of ICI combinations showed survival benefits compared with a control arm of sunitinib. Global access to these combinations should be made available to patients with advanced RCC., (© The Author(s), 2022.)

Importance: The association between treatment with first-line immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapies and physician-assessed objective imaging response among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains uncharacterized., Objective: To compare the likelihood of objective imaging response (ie, complete or partial response) to first-line IO combination ipilimumab-nivolumab (IOIO) therapy vs approved IO with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (IOVE) combination therapies among patients with mRCC., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter international cohort study was nested in routine clinical practice. A data set from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) was used to identify consecutive patients with mRCC who received treatment with IO combination therapies between May 30, 2013, and September 9, 2021. A total of 899 patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of mRCC who received treatment with a first-line IOVE or IOIO regimen and had evaluable responses were included., Exposures: Best overall response to first-line IO combination therapy based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference in treating physician-assessed objective imaging response based on the type of first-line IO combination therapy received. Secondary outcomes included the identification of baseline characteristics positively associated with objective imaging response and the association of objective imaging response with overall survival., Results: Among 1085 patients with mRCC who received first-line IO combination therapies, 899 patients (median age, 62.8 years [IQR, 55.9-69.2 years]; 666 male [74.2%]) had evaluable responses. A total of 794 patients had information available on IMDC risk classification; of those, 127 patients (16.0%) had favorable risk, 442 (55.7%) had intermediate risk, and 225 (28.3%) had poor risk. With regard to best overall response among all participants, 37 patients (4.1%) had complete response, 344 (38.3%) had partial response, 315 (35.0%) had stable disease, and 203 (22.6%) had progressive disease. Corresponding median overall survival was not estimable (95% CI, 53.3 months to not estimable) among patients with complete response, 55.9 months (95% CI, 44.1 months to not estimable) among patients with partial response, 48.1 months (95% CI, 33.4 months to not estimable) among patients with stable disease, and 13.0 months (95% CI, 8.4-18.1 months) among patients with progressive disease (log rank P < .001). Treatment with IOVE therapy was found to be independently associated with an increased likelihood of obtaining response (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.26-2.81; P = .002) compared with IOIO therapy. The presence of lung metastases (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20), receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43), and favorable IMDC risk (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.39) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of response., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, treatment with IOVE therapy was associated with significantly increased odds of objective imaging response compared with IOIO therapy. The presence of lung metastases, receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy, and favorable IMDC risk were associated with increased odds of experiencing objective imaging response. These findings may help inform treatment selection, especially in clinical contexts associated with high-volume multisite metastatic disease, in which obtaining objective imaging response is important.

Introduction: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab was associated with a survival benefit in a phase III clinical trial of first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this study, mRCC patients from the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database who received first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab were analyzed to determine the safety and outcomes in a real-world setting., Patients and Methods: Patients who received ipilimumab plus nivolumab as first-line therapy for mRCC in CKCis, were identified, and the amount of treatment received, discontinuation rates, and reasons for discontinuing treatment were determined. Toxicity data, including type and grade, were collected. Efficacy outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR)., Results: The cohort included 195 patients, the majority with clear cell histology (74%). All 4 cycles of ipilimumab plus nivolumab were administered in 124 patients (64%). Progressive disease (n = 87; 45%) and toxicity (n = 36; 18%) were the most common causes for discontinuing treatment. Several patients (n = 18) did not receive all 4 doses of ipilimumab but received single agent nivolumab. The estimated median OS was 54.5 months (95% CI, 17.7 - NE) and 12-month OS was 72.2% (95% CI, 65.0 - 79.3). Median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI 5.3 - 10.2) and ORR was 42.5%. Patients who received all 4 cycles of ipilimumab plus nivolumab had better ORR (50% vs. 28%) and a longer PFS and OS than those who received less than 4 cycles (P < .0001). Ninety-five AEs were documented in 72 patients who required dose reduction/change, with colitis being the most frequent., Conclusion: In this real-world cohort of treatment-naïve mRCC patients, outcomes, and safety were comparable to previously reported clinical trial data., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Context: Body mass index (BMI) is a useful tool for measuring body composition. It is unclear whether high BMI is a favourable indicator in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)., Objective: To investigate the prognostic significance of BMI in patients with mRCC treated with ICIs in a systematic review and meta-analysis., Evidence Acquisition: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched in July 2021, and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement., Evidence Synthesis: A total of 517 nonduplicate citations were screened by title and abstract, followed by full-text screening of 57 candidate articles to determine whether each study met the eligibility criteria. Overall, a total of 2281 patients from eight studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. BMI levels were compared with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in seven and three studies, respectively. Overweight/obese BMI was significantly associated with better OS compared to normal BMI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.77, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.65-0.91; p = 0.002). A similar trend was observed for PFS (aHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-1.00; p = 0.050). There was no statistical heterogeneity or obvious publication bias among these studies., Conclusions: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of BMI on survival outcomes of patients with mRCC treated with ICIs. To confirm the existence of the obesity paradox for patients with mRCC in the immuno-oncology era, high-quality clinical trials and basic research are warranted., Patient Summary: We reviewed published data on survival outcomes of 2281 patients with metastatic kidney cancer treated with immunotherapy drugs in relation to their body mass index (BMI). We found that higher BMI was associated with better survival when compared to normal BMI for this disease setting and treatment strategy., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: Complementary medicines (CM) are frequently used by patients with cancer. Controversy exists over the effectiveness and risk that CM may add to conventional cancer therapy. The incidence of CM use among patients enrolled in phase III clinical trials is unknown., Methods: Medication lists from 6 international phase III clinical trials were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients using CM. Patients had metastatic breast, colorectal, or lung cancers. Quality of life, adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival were compared between CM users and non-users. Baseline differences between groups were adjusted with propensity score matching groups., Results: Seven hundred and six of 3446 patients (20.5%) used at least one CM. CM use was highest among patients with breast cancer (35.6%). CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors (ECOG 0-1, non-smoking status, younger age, and fewer metastases). CM use was associated with lower rates of adverse events (50% vs. 62%, P = .002) and quality of life was similar between both groups. After adjustment with propensity score matching, CM use was also associated with longer overall survival in patients with lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.80, 95%CI, 0.68-0.94, P =.0054). However, several key control variables like EGFR status were not available., Conclusion: One in 5 patients in phase III clinical trials report using CM. CM was not associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes. However, CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors, and likely other confounders that may have contributed to improved outcomes observed in the lung cohort. Physicians should monitor for CM use and potential interactions with clinical trial drugs., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Importance: The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has evolved rapidly over the last decade. Recent combination approaches heralded by targeting immune checkpoints cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) have been followed in consecutive years by protocols targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, PD-1, and programmed death ligand-1. The differences in baseline patient characteristics, statistical plans, follow-up length, biomarker-derived approaches, and trial design make cross-trial comparisons difficult. Given the regulatory approval of a number of these regimens, the current available evidence is reviewed herein for combination first-line regimens with published randomized phase 3 trial data., Observations: Combination approaches have transformed outcomes for patients. Durable disease control and prolonged overall survival have been achieved by both doublet immune checkpoint blockade and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor plus PD-1 blockade. Rationale for variations in trial outcome are offered, alongside approaches to navigating patient-empowered treatment selection, focusing on predictive tools, biomarkers, and the role of real-world data., Conclusions and Relevance: Advances in the genomic, molecular, and immunologic understanding of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma have lifted the survival curves for this disease markedly in recent years. Combination approaches will remain standard of care in the first-line setting. However, thoughtful study design is needed to accurately estimate outcomes and integrate novel approaches into the treatment armamentarium.

Context: Considerable advances have been made in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), with immunotherapy-based combinations including immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (IO-TKIs) and dual immunotherapy (IO-IO) favored. A lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing these treatments means that there is uncertainty regarding their use in clinical practice., Objective: To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic treatments for mRCC with a focus on IO-based combinations., Evidence Acquisition: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and abstracts of recent major scientific meetings were searched to identify the most up-to-date phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line IO-based combinations for mRCC up to June 2021. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were completed using the Bayesian framework. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment-related drug discontinuation (TRDD), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The analysis was performed for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population as well as by clinical risk group., Evidence Synthesis: A total of six phase 3 RCTs were included involving a total of 5121 patients. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit in the ITT population (surface under the cumulative ranking curve 82%). Avelumab plus axitinib (AVEL-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with favorable risk (65%). Pembrolizumab plus AXI (PEMBRO-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with intermediate risk (78%). PEMBRO plus lenvatinib (PEMBRO-LENV) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with poor risk (89%). PEMBRO-LENV was associated with a superior PFS benefit across all risk groups (89-98%). Maximal ORR was achieved with PEMBRO-LENV (97%). The highest likelihood for CR was attained with NIVO plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI; 85%) and PEMBRO-LENV (83%). The highest grade 3-4 TRAE rate occurred with PEMBRO-LENV (95%) and NIVO-CABO (83%), but the latter was associated with the lowest TRDD rate (2%). By contrast, NIVO-IPI had the lowest grade 3-4 TRAE rate (6%) and the highest likelihood of TRDD (100%). HRQoL consistently favored NIVO-CABO (66-75%), PEMBRO-LENV (44-85%), and NIVO-IPI (65-93%) in comparison to the other treatments., Conclusions: IO-TKI drug combinations are associated with consistent improvements in clinically relevant outcomes for all mRCC risk groups. This benefit may be at the cost of higher TRAE rates; however, lower TRDD rates suggest a manageable side-effect profile. Longer follow-up is required to determine if the benefits of IO-TKIs will be sustained and if they should be favored in the first-line treatment of mRCC., Patient Summary: Combination treatments based on immunotherapy agents continue to show meaningful benefits in the first-line treatment of metastatic kidney cancer. Our review and network meta-analysis shows that immunotherapy combined with another class of agents called tyrosine kinase inhibitors is promising. However, longer follow-up is needed for this treatment strategy to clarify if the benefits are long-lasting., (© 2022 The Authors.)