Search

The role of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors is unclear.To evaluate the relationship between upfront CN and clinical outcomes in the setting of mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy.Using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium, we retrospectively identified patients diagnosed with de novo mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy.Overall survival (OS) was compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regressions adjusting for known prognostic factors.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.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.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.

Programmed death 1 (PD-1) and PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors have shown activity in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Data on the activity of these agents in patients with non–clear cell RCC (nccRCC) or patients with sarcomatoid/rhabdoid differentiation are limited. In this multicenter analysis, we explored the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with nccRCC or sarcomatoid/rhabdoid differentiation. Baseline and follow-up demographic, clinical, treatment, and radiographic data were collected. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Secondary endpoints include time-to-treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), and biomarker correlates. Forty-three patients were included: papillary (n = 14; 33%), chromophobe (n = 10; 23%), unclassified (n = 9; 21%), translocation (n = 3; 7%), and ccRCC with sarcomatoid differentiation (n = 7, 16%). Of those 43 patients, 11 patients (26%) had sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation (n = 7 with ccRCC; n = 4 nccRCC). Overall, 8 patients (19%) objectively responded, including 4 patients (13%) who received PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. Responses were observed in patients with ccRCC with sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation (n = 3/7, 43%), translocation RCC (n = 1/3, 33%), and papillary RCC (n = 4/14, 29%). The median TTF was 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8–5.5] and median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI, 7.4–not reached). No specific genomic alteration was associated with clinical benefit. Modest antitumor activity for PD-1/PD-L1–blocking agents was observed in some patients with nccRCC. Further prospective studies are warranted to investigate the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in this heterogeneous patient population. Cancer Immunol Res; 6(7); 758–65. ©2018 AACR.

Includes: Table 1S. Baseline patient and disease characteristics. Table 2S. Tumor mutation burden status. Table 3S. PDL1 expression data. Figure 1S. Overall survival for the total cohort.

Purpose: Glioblastoma is one of the most lethal cancers in humans, and with existing therapy, survival remains at 14.6 months. Current barriers to successful treatment include their infiltrative behavior, extensive tumor heterogeneity, and the presence of a stem-like population of cells, termed brain tumor–initiating cells (BTIC) that confer resistance to conventional therapies.Experimental Design: To develop therapeutic strategies that target BTICs, we focused on a repurposing approach that explored already-marketed (clinically approved) drugs for therapeutic potential against patient-derived BTICs that encompass the genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of glioblastoma observed clinically.Results: Using a high-throughput in vitro drug screen, we found that montelukast, clioquinol, and disulfiram (DSF) were cytotoxic against a large panel of patient-derived BTICs. Of these compounds, disulfiram, an off-patent drug previously used to treat alcoholism, in the presence of a copper supplement, showed low nanomolar efficacy in BTICs including those resistant to temozolomide and the highly infiltrative quiescent stem-like population. Low dose DSF-Cu significantly augmented temozolomide activity in vitro, and importantly, prolonged in vivo survival in patient-derived BTIC models established from both newly diagnosed and recurrent tumors. Moreover, we found that in addition to acting as a potent proteasome inhibitor, DSF-Cu functionally impairs DNA repair pathways and enhances the effects of DNA alkylating agents and radiation. These observations suggest that DSF-Cu inhibits proteasome activity and augments the therapeutic effects of DNA-damaging agents (temozolomide and radiation).Conclusions: DSF-Cu should be considered as an adjuvant therapy for the treatment of patients with glioblastoma in both newly diagnosed and recurrent settings. Clin Cancer Res; 22(15); 3860–75. ©2016 AACR.

Figure S1: Preclinical assessment of clioquinol. Figure S2: Preclinical assessment of montelukast. Figure S3: Secondary validation of compounds identified via HTS. Figure S4: Sensitivity of BTICs to TMZ. Figure S5: Copper is required for Disulfiram-mediated cell killing. Figure S6: Cell Viability and Apoptosis in the presence of DSF-Cu. Figure S7: Efficacy to DSF-Cu is independent of MGMT expression. Figure S8: Inhibition of proteasome activity by DSF-Cu. Figure S9: DSF-Cu in combination with TMZ prolongs survival in vivo. Figure S10: DSF-Cu mediated apoptosis in vivo. Table S1: Summary of BTIC Molecular Characterization. Table S2: Summary of Compound Priortization. Table S3: Down regulation of DNA repair genes by DSF-Cu.

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.

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. ispartof: CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER vol:21 issue:1 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Clinical trials have demonstrated higher complete response (CR) rates in the immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination arms than in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) arms in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We aimed to characterize real-world patients who experienced CR to the contemporary first-line therapies.Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), response-evaluable patients who received frontline IO-based combination therapy or TKI monotherapy were analyzed. Baseline characteristics of patients and post-landmark overall survival (OS) were compared based on best overall response, as per RECIST 1.1.A total of 52 (4.6%) of 1126 and 223 (3.0%) of 7557 patients experienced CR to IO-based and TKI therapies, respectively (The CR rate was not as high in the real-world population as in the clinical trial population. Among those who experienced CR, several adverse clinicopathological features were more frequently observed in the IO-based cohort than in the TKI cohort. CR was an indicator of favourable OS.

Combination Therapies; Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Terapias combinadas; Carcinoma metastásico de células renales Teràpies combinades; Carcinoma metastàtic de cèl·lules renals 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

Background Cabozantinib is approved for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on the METEOR and CABOSUN trials. However, real‐world effectiveness and dosing patterns of cabozantinib are not well characterized. Methods Patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib between 2011 and 2019 were identified and stratified using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. First‐ (1L), second‐ (2L), third‐ (3L), and fourth‐line (4L) overall response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Dose reduction rates and their association with TTF and OS were determined. Results A total of 413 patients were identified. The ORRs across 1L to 4L were 32%, 26%, 25%, and 29%, respectively, and the median TTF rates were 8.3, 7.3, 7.0, and 8.0 months, respectively. The median OS (mOS) rates in 1L to 4L were 30.7, 17.8, 12.6, and 14.9 months, respectively. For patients treated with 1L PD(L)1 combination agent (n = 31), 2L cabozantinib had ORR of 22%, median TTF of 5.4 months, and mOS of 17.4 months. About 50% (129/258) of patients required dose reductions. The TTF and mOS were significantly longer for patients who required dose reduction vs. patients who did not, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.202–0.672, p, Cabozantinib demonstrates activity for use in real‐world patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma across the first‐ to fourth‐line treatment settings.

Background International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups are important when considering therapeutic options for first-line treatment. Materials and Methods Adult patients with clear cell mRCC initiating first-line sunitinib between 2010 and 2018 were included in this retrospective database study. Median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Outcomes were stratified by IMDC risk groups and evaluated for those in the combined intermediate and poor risk group and separately for those in the intermediate risk group with one versus two risk factors. Results Among 1,769 patients treated with first-line sunitinib, 318 (18%) had favorable, 1,031 (58%) had intermediate, and 420 (24%) had poor IMDC risk. Across the three risk groups, patients had similar age, gender, and sunitinib initiation year. Median TTD was 15.0, 8.5, and 4.2 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 7.1 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS was 52.1, 31.5, and 9.8 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 23.2 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS (35.1 vs. 21.9 months) and TTD (10.3 vs. 6.6 months) were significantly different between intermediate risk patients with one versus two risk factors. Conclusion This real-world study found a median OS of 52 months for patients with favorable IMDC risk treated with first-line sunitinib, setting a new benchmark on clinical outcomes of clear cell mRCC. Analysis of intermediate risk group by one or two risk factors demonstrated distinct clinical outcomes. Implications for Practice This analysis offers a contemporary benchmark for overall survival (median, 52.1 months; 95% confidence interval, 43.4–61.2) among patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy in a real-world setting and classified as favorable risk according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification. This study demonstrates that clinical outcomes differ between IMDC risk groups as well as within the intermediate risk group based on the number of risk factors, thus warranting further consideration of risk group when counseling patients about therapeutic options and designing clinical trials.

654 Background: IO-based regimens have demonstrated substantial efficacy in the management of metastatic clear-cell RCC (mccRCC), where they currently represent the standard of care. ChRCC has a dismal prognosis in the metastatic setting. Recent clinical trials evaluating IO-based regimens across non-ccRCC subtypes identified a preliminary poor response in advanced ChRCC, but were limited by low sample sizes. We sought to comprehensively evaluate the outcomes of patients with ChRCC treated with IO-based regimens. Methods: Using real-world data from the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC), we conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with advanced ChRCC who received IO-based therapies, including dual IO therapy or IO + VEGF targeted therapy (VEGF-TT), in the first-line setting. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure (TTF) and ORR. Cox proportional hazards models were used to adjust for age and IMDC risk groups as covariates. A logistic regression was used to determine the association between the odds of achieving a response and RCC subtype. Results: We identified 31 patients with advanced ChRCC and 856 patients with ccRCC treated with IO-based therapies in the first-line setting, with a median age of 61.5 years (IQR: 51.5-69.0). Compared to patients with ccRCC who received IO-based therapies as initial regimens, patients with ChRCC had a lower OS (median OS: 24.7 vs. 50.5 months, respectively; p

PURPOSE Patients and providers often lack clinical decision tools to enable effective shared decision making. This is especially true in the rapidly changing therapeutic landscape of metastatic kidney cancer. Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria, a validated risk prediction tool for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, we created and user-tested a novel interactive visualization for clinical use. METHODS An interactive visualization depicting IMDC criteria was created, with the final version including data for more than 4,500 patients. Usability testing was performed with nonmedical lay-users and medical oncology fellow physicians. Subjects used the tool to calculate median survival times based on IMDC criteria. User confidence was surveyed. An iterative user feedback implementation cycle was completed and informed revision of the tool. RESULTS The tool is available at CloViz—IMDC. Initially, 400 lay-users and 15 physicians completed clinical scenarios and surveys. Cumulative accuracy across scenarios was higher for physicians than lay-users (84% v 74%; P = .03). Eighty-three percent of lay-users and 87% of physicians thought the tool became intuitive with use. Sixty-eight percent of lay-users wanted to use the tool clinically compared with 87% of physicians. After revisions, the updated tool was user-tested with 100 lay-users and 15 physicians. Physicians, but not lay-users, showed significant improvement in accuracy in the updated version of the tool (90% v 67%; P = .008). Seventy-two percent of lay-users and 93% of physicians wanted to use the updated tool in a clinical setting. CONCLUSION A graphical method of interacting with a validated nomogram provides prognosis results that can be used by nonmedical lay-users and physicians, and has the potential for expanded use across many clinical conditions.

Background The safety and efficacy of targeted therapy in older patients (≥ 70 years) with metastatic colorectal cancer is not well evaluated. Patients and Methods Outcomes of older patients (including overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], toxicity, and quality of life [QoL]) were compared to young patients using data from 2 large previously reported clinical trials, CO.17 (cetuximab vs. best supportive care) and CO.20 (cetuximab plus placebo vs. cetuximab plus brivanib). Only patients with wild-type KRAS tumors were included. Results A total of 251 (26.3%) of 955 patients were ≥ 70 years old. No significant differences in OS, PFS, or grade 3/4 adverse events were observed between older and younger patients treated with cetuximab (or cetuximab with placebo) in either trial. Younger patients trended toward superior OS in both CO.17 (hazard ratio = 1.80; P = .16) and CO.20 (hazard ratio = 1.34; P = .07). QoL maintenance favored younger patients in CO.17 (3.6 vs. 5.7 months; P = .046) but no difference of QoL maintenance was observed in the larger CO.20 trial (1.7 vs. 1.8 months; P = .64). Combination therapy of cetuximab and brivanib was significantly more toxic in older adults (87% vs. 77%; P = .03). Conclusion OS, PFS, and toxicities were similar between older and younger patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer when treated with cetuximab. Both age groups likely experience similar QoL maintenance with cetuximab. Dual targeted therapy was significantly more toxic in older patients.

Canada has a long tradition of leading practice-changing clinical trials in oncology. Here, we describe methodology, results, and interpretation of oncology RCTs with Canadian involvement compared to RCTs from other high-income countries (HICs). A literature search identified all RCTs evaluating anti-cancer therapies published 2014–2017. RCTs were classified based on the country affiliation of first authors. The study cohort included 636 HIC-led RCTs, 155 (24%) had Canadian authors. Three-quarters (112/155, 72%) of Canadian RCTs were conducted in the palliative setting, compared to two thirds (299/481, 62%) of RCTs from other HICs (p = 0.022). Canadian RCTs were more likely than those from other HICs to be supported by industry (85% vs. 69%, p &lt, 0.001). The proportion of positive Canadian trials that met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit was comparable to RCTs without Canadian authors (29% vs. 32%, p = 0.137). Thirteen percent (20/155) of all Canadian trials were affiliated with the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). Canada plays a meaningful role in the global cancer research ecosystem but is overly reliant on industry support. The very low proportion of trials that identify a new treatment with substantial clinical benefit is worrisome. A renewed investment in cancer clinical trials is needed in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies have changed the treatment standards of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the effectiveness of targeted therapy following discontinuation of IO therapy in real-world settings has not been well studied.OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment sequence and assess clinical effectiveness of targeted therapy for mRCC patients who received prior IO therapy.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study using data from eight international cancer centers was conducted. Patients with mRCC were ≥18yr old, received IO therapy in any line, and initiated targeted therapy following IO therapy discontinuation.INTERVENTION: Patients were treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORIs).OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. Models were adjusted for age, sex, therapy line, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk group.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 314 patients, 276 (87.9%) and 38 (12.1%) were treated with VEGFR-TKI and mTORI therapy, respectively. The most common tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments were axitinib, cabozantinib, and sunitinib following IO therapy. In adjusted models, patients treated with VEGFR-TKI versus mTORI therapy had lower hazard of TTD after IO treatment (aHR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.30-0.71; p < 0.01). One-year OS probability (65% vs 47%, p < 0.01) and proportion of ORR (29.8% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01) were significantly greater for patients treated with VEGFR-TKIs versus those treated with mTORIs.CONCLUSIONS: Targeted therapy has clinical activity following IO treatment. Patients who received VEGFR-TKIs versus mTORIs following IO therapy had improved clinical outcomes. These findings may help inform treatment guidelines and clinical practice for patients post-IO therapy.PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients may continue to experience clinical benefits from targeted therapies after progression on immuno-oncology treatment.

The burden of cancer falls disproportionally on low-middle-income countries (LMICs). It is not well known how novel therapies are tested in current clinical trials and the extent to which they match global disease burden.To describe the design, results, and publication of oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the extent to which trials match global disease burden and how trial methods and results differ across economic settings.In this retrospective cohort study, a literature search identified all phase 3 RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies published from 2014 to 2017. Randomized clinical trials were classified based on World Bank economic classification. Descriptive statistics were used to compare RCT design and results from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Statistical analysis was conducted in January 2020.Differences in the design, results, and output of RCTs between HICs and LMICs.The study cohort included 694 RCTs: 636 (92%) led by HICs and 58 (8%) led by LMICs. A total of 601 RCTs (87%) tested systemic therapy and 88 RCTs (13%) tested radiotherapy or surgery. The proportion of RCTs relative to global deaths was higher for breast cancer (121 RCTs [17%] and 7% of deaths) but lower for gastroesophageal cancer (38 RCTs [6%] and 14% of deaths), liver cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 8% of deaths), pancreas cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 5% of deaths), and cervical cancer (9 RCTs [1%] and 3% of deaths). Randomized clinical trials in HICs were more likely than those in LMICs to be funded by industry (464 [73%] vs 24 [41%]; P .001). Studies in LMICs were smaller than those in HICs (median, 219 [interquartile range, 137-363] vs 474 [interquartile range, 262-743] participants; P .001) and more likely to meet their primary end points (39 of 58 [67%] vs 286 of 636 [45%]; P = .001). The observed median effect size among superiority trials was larger in LMICs compared with HICs (hazard ratio, 0.62 [interquartile range, 0.54-0.76] vs 0.84 [interquartile range, 0.67-0.97]; P .001). Studies from LMICs were published in journals with lower median impact factors than studies from HICs (7 [interquartile range, 4-21] vs 21 [interquartile range, 7-34]; P .001). Publication bias persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative (median impact factor: LMIC negative trial, 5 [interquartile range, 4-6] vs HIC negative trial, 18 [interquartile range, 6-26]; LMIC positive trial, 9 [interquartile range, 5-25] vs HIC positive trial, 25 [interquartile range, 10-48]; P .001).This study suggests that oncology RCTs are conducted predominantly by HICs and do not match the global burden of cancer. Randomized clinical trials from LMICs are more likely to identify effective therapies and have a larger effect size than RCTs from HICs. This study suggests that there is a funding and publication bias against RCTs led by LMICs. Policy makers, research funders, and journals need to address this issue with a range of measures including building capacity and capability in RCTs.

IMPORTANCE: There exists considerable biological and clinical variability between histologic variants of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Data reporting on patterns of metastasis in histologic variants of mRCC are sparse. OBJECTIVE: To characterize sites of metastasis and their association with survival across the 3 most common histologic variants of mRCC: clear cell (ccRCC), papillary (pRCC), and chromophobe (chrRCC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this multicenter, international cohort study, the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database was used to identify consecutive patients starting systemic therapy for mRCC between 2002 and 2019. Patients with mixed histologic subtype were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed from February to June 2020. EXPOSURES: Data regarding histologic subtype and sites of metastatic involvement at the time of first systemic therapy initiation were collected. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were prevalence of metastatic site involvement and overall survival (OS) from time of systemic therapy initiation. Patients with multiple sites of metastatic involvement were included in analyses of all groups to which they had metastases. RESULTS: A total of 10 105 patients were eligible for analysis. Median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis was 60 (53-67) years, 7310 (72.4%) were men and 8526 (84.5%) underwent nephrectomy. Of these, 9252 (92%) had ccRCC, 667 (7%) had pRCC, and 186 (2%) had chrRCC. The median number of sites of metastasis was 2 (range, 0-7). In ccRCC, the most common sites of metastasis were lung (70%; 6189 of 8804 patients [448 missing]), lymph nodes (45%; 3874 of 8655 patients [597 missing]), bone (32%; 2847 of 8817 patients [435 missing]), liver (18%; 1560 of 8804 [448 missing]), and adrenal gland (10%; 678 of 6673 patients [2579 missing]). Sites of metastasis varied between subtypes. Lung, adrenal, brain, and pancreatic metastases were more frequent in ccRCC, lymph node involvement was more common in pRCC, and liver metastases were more frequent in chrRCC. Median OS for ccRCC varied by site of metastatic involvement, ranging between 16 months (95% CI, 13.7-18.8 months) for the pleura and 50 months (95% CI, 41.1-55.5 months) for the pancreas. Compared with ccRCC, patients with pRCC tended to have lower OS, regardless of metastatic site. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Sites of metastatic involvement differ according to histologic subtype in mRCC and are associated with OS. These data highlight the clinical and biological variability between histologic subtypes of mRCC. Patterns of metastatic spread may reflect differences in underlying disease biology. Further work to investigate differences in immune, molecular, and genetic profiles between metastatic sites and histologic subtypes is encouraged. ispartof: JAMA NETWORK OPEN vol:4 issue:1 ispartof: location:United States status: published

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the clinical effectiveness of second-line (2L) vascular endothelial growth factor (receptor) targeted inhibitor (VEGF(R)i) sunitinib after first-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in real-world settings. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study among adult patients with mRCC treated with 2L sunitinib following 1L IO was conducted from select International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) centers. All analyses were performed overall and by 1L ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) or 1L IO+VEGF(R)i. Median overall survival (mOS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) in 2L were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The 2L objective response rate (ORR) (complete/partial response) was reported. RESULTS: Among 102 patients on 2L sunitinib, mean age was 61.3 years. IMDC risk scores at 2L initiation was available for 83 patients: 8 (9.6%) were favorable, 45 (54.2%) were intermediate, and 30 (36.1%) were poor risk. The 1L consisted of IPI+NIVO in 62 (60.8%), IO+VEGF(R)i therapy in 27 (26.5%), and IO monotherapy in 13 (12.7%) patients. Among all patients, mOS was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8-21.7), with a 1-year OS rate of 57.5% (95% CI, 45.2-68.0). mTTD was 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.2-7.2) and ORR was 22.5%. CONCLUSION: Despite availability of effective 1L therapies in recent years, 2L sunitinib continues to have clinical activity after failure of 1L IO. Further studies on optimal treatment sequencing after 1L IO progression are needed. ispartof: CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER vol:19 issue:4 pages:354-361 ispartof: location:United States status: published

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may present with primary metastases (synchronous disease) or develop metastases during follow-up (metachronous disease). The impact of time to metastasis on patient outcome is poorly characterised.OBJECTIVE: To characterise overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) based on time to metastasis in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy (tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs]).DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) to compare synchronous (metastases within ≤3 mo of initial diagnosis of cancer) versus metachronous disease (evaluated by >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr intervals).OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS and TFF were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox multivariable regressions analyses (MVAs) were adjusted for baseline factors.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 7386 patients with mRCC treated with first-line TKIs, 3906 (53%) and 3480 (47%) had synchronous and metachronous metastasis, respectively. More patients with synchronous versus metachronous disease had higher T stage (T1-2: 19% vs 34%), N1 disease (21% vs 6%), presence of sarcomatoid differentiation (15.8% vs 7.9%), Karnofsky performance status 3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr correlated with poor TTF (5.6 mo vs 7.3, 8.0, 10.8, and 13.3 mo, p CONCLUSIONS: Timing of metastases after initial RCC diagnosis may impact the outcomes from targeted therapy in mRCC.PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the impact of the timing of metastatic outbreak on survival outcomes in kidney cancer patients treated with targeted therapy. We found that the longer time to metastatic development was associated with improved outcome.

PURPOSE To investigate whether black race is an independent predictor of overall survival (OS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS We performed a retrospective 2-cohort (International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium [IMDC] and trial-database) study of patients with mRCC treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Unmatched (UM) and matched (M) analyses accounting for imbalances in region, year of treatment, age, and sex between races were performed. Cox models adjusting for histology, number of metastatic sites, nephrectomy, and IMDC risk compared time to treatment failure (TTF; IMDC cohort), progression-free survival (PFS; trial-database cohort), and OS. RESULTS The IMDC cohort included 73 black versus 3,381 (UM) and 1,236 (M) white patients. The trial-database cohort included 21 black versus 1,040 (UM) and 431 (M) white patients. Median OS for black versus white patients was 18.5 versus 25.8 months in the IMDC group and 21.0 versus 25.6 months in the trial-database group. Differences in OS were not significant in multivariable analysis in the IMDC group (hazard ratio [HR]M, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.5; HRUM, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.4) and trial-database (HRM, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.7; HRUM, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.6) cohorts. TTF for black patients was shorter in the UM IMDC cohort (HRUM, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8; P = .003), but not in the M analysis. PFS was shorter for black patients in both analyses in the trial-database cohort (HRM, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9; P = .002; HRUM, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9; P = .002). CONCLUSION Black patients had more IMDC risk factors and worse outcomes with TKIs versus white patients. Race was not an independent predictor of OS. Strategies to understand biologic determinants of outcomes for minority patients are needed to optimize care.

BACKGROUND: The present retrospective, longitudinal cohort study assessed the association between the first-line sunitinib treatment duration and clinical outcomes with second-line immuno-oncology (IO) therapy among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 161 patients with mRCC who had been treated with first-line sunitinib and subsequent IO therapy from select International mRCC Database Consortium centers were included. The overall survival, time to next therapy, time to treatment discontinuation, and real-world physician-assessed best response measured from IO therapy initiation were analyzed and compared between patients treated with first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months and those treated for < 6 months. RESULTS: The 116 patients treated with sunitinib for ≥ 6 months tended to be older and to have a better International mRCC Database Consortium risk than the 45 patients treated for < 6 months (favorable, 36% vs. 8%, P = .001; intermediate, 59% vs. 70%, P = .21; poor, 5% vs. 22%, P = .007). The receipt of sunitinib for ≥ 6 months versus < 6 months was associated with longer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.87; P = .02). No significant association was observed between the first-line sunitinib duration and second-line IO outcomes, including the time to next therapy (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.51; P = .66), time to treatment discontinuation (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.34; P = .49), and tumor response (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.22-2.49; P = .62). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant association between the first-line sunitinib duration and clinical outcomes with second-line IO therapy. Patients receiving first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months compared with < 6 months was associated with better overall survival, although potential unadjusted confounders could have been present. These findings support the paradigm that previous therapy will not dictate the effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy. ispartof: CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER vol:18 issue:4 pages:E350-E359 ispartof: location:United States status: published

BACKGROUND: The use of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) selectively for patients who show a favorable response to upfront systemic therapy may be an approach to select optimal candidates with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are most likely to benefit.OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize outcomes of deferred CN (dCN) after upfront sunitinib, outcomes relative to sunitinib alone, and outcomes of CN followed by sunitinib.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the prospectively maintained International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database to identify patients with newly diagnosed mRCC (2006-2018).INTERVENTION: Sunitinib alone, upfront CN followed by sunitinib, sunitinib followed by dCN.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were overall survival (OS) and time to sunitinib treatment failure (TTF). Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed; dCN was analyzed as a time-varying covariate to account for immortal time bias.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We evaluated 1541 patients, of whom 651 (42%) received sunitinib alone, 805 (52%) underwent CN followed by sunitinib, and 85 (5.5%) received sunitinib followed by dCN, at a median of 7.8 mo from diagnosis. Median OS periods for patients treated with sunitinib alone, CN followed by sunitinib, and sunitinib followed by dCN were 10, 19, and 46 mo, respectively, while the median TTF values were 4, 8, and 13 mo, respectively. In multivariable regression analyses, sunitinib followed by dCN was significantly associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.60, p CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received dCN were carefully selected and achieved long OS. With these benchmark outcomes, optimal selection criteria need to be identified and confirmation of the role of dCN in a clinical trial is warranted.PATIENT SUMMARY: We characterized benchmark survival outcomes for patients with metastatic kidney cancer treated with sunitinib alone, nephrectomy (kidney removal) followed by sunitinib, and sunitinib followed by nephrectomy. Patients who had their nephrectomy after an initial course of sunitinib had prolonged survival.

308 Background: The combination of immuno-oncology agents (IO) ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) and combinations of IO with vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapies (IOVE) have demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials for the first-line treatment of mRCC. This study seeks to establish real-world clinical benchmarks based on the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria using vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy (VEGF-TT) treated patients for context. Methods: The IMDC database (IMDConline.com) was used to identify patients with mRCC who received first-line IPI-NIVO, IOVE (axitinib/pembrolizumab, lenvatinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or axitinib/avelumab) and VEGF-TT (sunitinib or pazopanib) from 2002-2021. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and was calculated from time of initiation of first-line therapy to death or last follow up. Log-rank tests were conducted to compare favorable, intermediate, and poor risk OS outcomes within treatment groups. Overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates were calculated based on physician assessment of best clinical response. Results: In total, 692 patients received IPI-NIVO, 244 received IOVE, and 7152 received VEGF-TT. Baseline characteristics for IPI-NIVO, IOVE, and VEGF-TT, respectively, were as follows: median age (interquartile range) 63 (56-69), 64 (57-70), and 63 (56-70); male 72%, 74%, and 72% (p=0.74); non-clear cell histology 15%, 10%, and 13% (p=0.15); sarcomatoid features 24%, 15%, and 13% (p

Background: Fourth-line therapy (4LT) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) varies significantly due to the lack of data and recommendations to guide treatment decisions. Objective: To evaluate the use and efficacy of 4LT in mRCC patients. Methods: The International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset was used to identify patients with mRCC treated with 4LT. This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Patients were evaluated for overall response. The six prognostic variables included in the IMDC prognostic model were used to stratify patients into favorable-, intermediate- and poor-risk groups. Exploratory analyses were performed examining the elderly (>70 years old) and non-clear cell RCC subgroups. Proportional hazards regression modelling was performed adjusting these covariates by IMDC criteria measured at initiation of 4th line therapy. Results: 7498 patients were treated with first line targeted therapy and out of these 594 (7.9%) received 4LT. Everolimus was the most frequently used 4LT (16.8%). Sorafenib, axitinib, pazopanib, sunitinib and clinical trial drugs were also used in >10% of patients. The OS of patients on any 4LT was 12.8 months, with a PFS of 4.4 months. The overall response rate (ORR) was 13.7%. Favorable-risk patients using IMDC criteria (5%) displayed an OS of 23.1 months, intermediate-risk patients (66%) had an OS of 13.8 months and poor-risk patients (29%) had an OS of 7.8 (p 70 years and non-clear cell histology did not impact OS. Our study is limited by its retrospective design. Conclusions: 4LT use appears to have activity in mRCC patients. The IMDC continues to be of prognostic value in the fourth-line setting for OS. This study helps to set a benchmark for response rate and survival for which clinical trials can plan sample size calculations and aim to improve upon.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), recent data have shown efficacy of first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi-nivo) as well as immuno-oncology (IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor combinations. Comparative data between these strategies are limited.OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of ipi-nivo versus IO-VEGF (IOVE) combinations in mRCC, and describe practice patterns and effectiveness of second-line therapies.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the International Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset, patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo.INTERVENTION: All patients received first-line IO combination therapies.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: First- and second-line response rates, time to treatment failure (TTF), time to next treatment (TNT), and overall survival (OS) were analysed. Hazard ratios were adjusted for IMDC risk factors.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 113 patients received IOVE combinations and 75 received ipi-nivo. For IOVE combinations versus ipi-nivo, first-line response rates were 33% versus 40% (between-group difference 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8% to 22%, p = 0.4), TTF was 14.3 versus 10.2 mo (p = 0.2), TNT was 19.7 versus 17.9 mo (p = 0.4), and median OS was immature but not statistically different (p = 0.17). Adjusted hazard ratios for TTF, TNT, and OS were 0.71 (95% CI 0.46-1.12, p = 0.14), 0.65 (95% CI 0.38-1.11, p = 0.11), and 1.74 (95% CI 0.82-3.68, p = 0.14), respectively. Sixty-four (34%) patients received second-line treatment. In patients receiving subsequent VEGF-based therapy, second-line response rates were lower in the IOVE cohort than in the ipi-nivo cohort (15% vs 45%; between-group difference 30%, 95% CI 3-57%, p = 0.04; n = 40), though second-line TTF was not significantly different (3.7 vs 5.4 mo; p = 0.4; n = 55). Limitations include the study's retrospective design and sample size.CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in first-line outcomes between IOVE combinations and ipi-nivo. Most patients received VEGF-based therapy in the second line. In this group, second-line response rate was greater in patients who received ipi-nivo initially.PATIENT SUMMARY: There were no significant differences in key first-line outcomes for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma receiving immuno-oncology/vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor combinations versus ipilimumab and nivolumab.

4552 Background: Retrospective studies have shown an association between Ab exposure and inferior clinical outcomes in patients receiving ICI across various tumor types, including mRCC. However, it is unclear whether Ab exposure has a unique interaction with ICI or is an independent prognostic marker, regardless of treatment. We sought to examine Ab exposure and its association with clinical outcomes in patients with mRCC treated with ICI compared to VEGF-TT. Methods: We identified patients treated with ICI (anti-PD-L1 alone or in combination with VEGF or CTLA4 inhibitor) or VEGF-TT alone in first to fourth line settings from 2009-2020 across 3 academic centers in North America. Ab exposure was defined as administration of Ab within 60 days prior to initiation of systemic therapy. Outcomes of interest were response rate (RR), time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS). Multivariable Cox regression was performed to control for imbalances in International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk factors, histology, and treatment line. Results: We identified 748 patients. Among the ICI (n=427) and VEGF-TT (n=321) cohorts, 13% vs 15% (p=0.47) had Ab exposure and 57% vs 48% (p=0.046) were treated in the first line setting. The proportion of favorable, intermediate, and poor risk disease by IMDC criteria differed between Ab exposed and unexposed patients in the ICI (14% vs 18%, 47% vs 62%, 39% vs 21% p=0.03) and VEGF-TT (7% vs 13%, 43% vs 60%, 50% vs 27%, p=0.01) cohorts. RR, TTF and OS results are displayed in Table 1. Multivariable analysis did not show a significant independent association between Ab exposure and OS in both the ICI (HR 1.13, p=0.62) and VEGF-TT (HR 1.32, p=0.16) cohorts. Treatment modality (ICI vs VEGF-TT) did not modify the effect of Ab exposure on OS (p=0.84). Conclusions: Ab exposure was associated with higher IMDC risk scores in both the ICI and VEGF-TT cohorts as well as inferior OS on univariable analysis. After adjusting for IMDC risk factors, histology and treatment line, we were unable to find an independent association between Ab exposure and OS in multivariable analysis for either cohort.[Table: see text]

4554 Background: IPI NIVO is approved for 1L treatment of IMDC intermediate/poor risk mRCC based on the CHECKMATE 214 trial. Herein, we report the clinical effectiveness of 1L IPI NIVO and second line (2L) therapy in the real-world setting. Methods: Using the IMDC dataset, patients (pts) treated with 1L IPI NIVO were identified. The outcomes of interest were 1L and 2L overall response rate (ORR), treatment duration (TD), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS). Results: 706 pts were included: 9% (57/614), 58% (354/614), and 33% (203/614) were IMDC favorable (fav), intermediate (int), and poor risk, respectively. Median age was 61 years. The majority of pts were males (71%), had clear cell histology (85%), and underwent nephrectomy (61%). 36%, 19%, and 8% of patients had bone, liver, and brain metastases, respectively. The 12-month OS for pts with IMDC fav, int, and poor risk disease was 92%, 79%, and 56%, respectively (p

276 Background: Ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) and IO/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor combinations (IOVE) are now standard of care 1L treatment options for mRCC. However, there is limited head-to-head comparative evidence between these strategies. Methods: Using the IMDC dataset, patients treated with a 1L IOVE combination (pembrolizumab axitinib, avelumab axitinib and nivolumab cabozantinib) were compared with those treated with IPI-NIVO. The outcomes of interest were overall response rate (ORR), treatment duration (TD), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS). A preplanned subgroup analysis of the IMDC intermediate/poor risk population was conducted. Hazard ratios were adjusted for IMDC risk factors. Results: 723 patients were included for analysis (N=571 for IPI-NIVO and N=152 for IOVE). The median age was 60 in both groups. The proportion of patients with IMDC favorable, intermediate and poor risk disease in IPI-NIVO vs. IOVE groups were 9% vs. 33%, 58% vs. 53%, 33% vs. 14%, respectively. In the intermediate/poor risk groups (Table), ORR and median TD were lower and shorter in IPI-NIVO vs IOVE while no difference in median TTNT and OS was detected. The HR for death adjusting for IMDC criteria for IPI-NIVO vs. IOVE was 0.92 (95% CI 0.61-1.40, p=0.71). IMDC risk groups and the presence or absence of sarcomatoid histology, brain, liver or bone metastases were not associated with differences in OS between these treatments (all p>0.2). Patients that had dose delays or steroid use (defined as >40mg of prednisone equivalent/day) for immune related adverse events (irAEs) were associated with longer median TTNT (21.6 vs. 9.5 mons, p=0.02) and OS (NR vs. 44.4 mons, p=0.01) despite similar treatment durations (7.6 vs. 8.9 mons, p=0.77) compared to those without dose delays or steroid use. Conclusions: We were unable to detect any differences in OS between IPI-NIVO and IOVE regimens in the IMDC intermediate/poor risk groups and amongst various subgroups. Patients who experienced irAEs requiring dose delay or steroids had longer overall survival. [Table: see text]

Purpose: Glioblastoma is one of the most lethal cancers in humans, and with existing therapy, survival remains at 14.6 months. Current barriers to successful treatment include their infiltrative behavior, extensive tumor heterogeneity, and the presence of a stem-like population of cells, termed brain tumor–initiating cells (BTIC) that confer resistance to conventional therapies. Experimental Design: To develop therapeutic strategies that target BTICs, we focused on a repurposing approach that explored already-marketed (clinically approved) drugs for therapeutic potential against patient-derived BTICs that encompass the genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of glioblastoma observed clinically. Results: Using a high-throughput in vitro drug screen, we found that montelukast, clioquinol, and disulfiram (DSF) were cytotoxic against a large panel of patient-derived BTICs. Of these compounds, disulfiram, an off-patent drug previously used to treat alcoholism, in the presence of a copper supplement, showed low nanomolar efficacy in BTICs including those resistant to temozolomide and the highly infiltrative quiescent stem-like population. Low dose DSF-Cu significantly augmented temozolomide activity in vitro, and importantly, prolonged in vivo survival in patient-derived BTIC models established from both newly diagnosed and recurrent tumors. Moreover, we found that in addition to acting as a potent proteasome inhibitor, DSF-Cu functionally impairs DNA repair pathways and enhances the effects of DNA alkylating agents and radiation. These observations suggest that DSF-Cu inhibits proteasome activity and augments the therapeutic effects of DNA-damaging agents (temozolomide and radiation). Conclusions: DSF-Cu should be considered as an adjuvant therapy for the treatment of patients with glioblastoma in both newly diagnosed and recurrent settings. Clin Cancer Res; 22(15); 3860–75. ©2016 AACR.

BACKGROUND: Smoking increases the risk of developing renal cell carcinoma (RCC) but the effect of tobacco consumption on survival outcome of patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) treated with targeted therapies has not been well characterized.PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with mRCC were categorized as current, former, and nonsmokers at the time of starting targeted therapy. Smoking data from 1980 patients with mRCC treated with targeted therapy were collected through the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) from 12 international cancer centers.RESULTS: Although former and nonsmokers had comparable OS times (23.8 vs. 23.4 months; P = .898), current smokers had significantly shorter OS (16.1 months; P < .001) than nonsmokers. Current but not former smoking status was an independent poor prognosis factor (hazard ratio [HR], 1.3; P = .002) when adjusted for the IMDC risk criteria. Each pack-year increased the risk of death by 1% (HR, 1.01; P = .036). The duration of first-line therapy response was not different and was 7.7 months versus 7.5 months versus 6.4 months in never, former (P = .609), and current smokers (P = .839), respectively.CONCLUSION: Active smoking is associated with diminished OS in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy agents. However, patients who quit smoking returned to a similar risk of death from RCC compared with patients who never smoked. Smoking cessation should be a counseling priority among mRCC patients receiving targeted agents and smoking should be considered as a confounding factor in major clinical trials.

BACKGROUND Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)–targeted therapies are standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, toxicities can lead to drug discontinuation, which can affect patient outcomes. This study was aimed at identifying risk factors for toxicity and constructing the first model to predict toxicity-related treatment discontinuation (TrTD) in mRCC patients treated with VEGF-targeted therapies. METHODS The baseline characteristics, treatment outcomes, and toxicity data were collected for 936 mRCC patients receiving first-line VEGF-targeted therapy from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. A competing risk regression model was used to identify risk factors for TrTD, and it accounted for other causes as competing risks. RESULTS Overall, 198 (23.8%) experienced TrTD. Sunitinib was the most common VEGF-targeted therapy (77%), and it was followed by sorafenib (18.4%). The median time on therapy was 7.1 months for all patients and 4.4 months for patients with TrTD. The most common toxicities leading to TrTD included fatigue, diarrhea, and mucositis. In a multivariate analysis, significant predictors for TrTD were a baseline age ≥60 years, a glomerular filtration rate (GFR)

BACKGROUND Questions about optimal sequencing of systemic therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and whether cross-resistance occurs between different drugs remain largely unanswered. Previous studies have produced conflicting data on the activity of docetaxel in patients who did not attain a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response to abiraterone acetate (abiraterone). We investigated whether the biochemical response to abiraterone is associated with efficacy of subsequent docetaxel therapy. METHODS mCRPC patients treated with docetaxel after abiraterone were retrospectively identified at three Canadian institutions. Patients who had also received docetaxel prior to abiraterone were termed “docetaxel-experienced,” while those not treated with docetaxel prior to abiraterone were termed “docetaxel-naive.” Treatment outcomes on docetaxel were stratified by prior response to abiraterone and compared using χ2-square test for confirmed PSA response rate (≥ 50% decline from baseline maintained for ≥ 3 weeks) and the log-rank method for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Eighty-six patients were treated with abiraterone, of whom 49 were docetaxel-experienced and 37 were docetaxel-naive. Prior PSA response to abiraterone was no decline

610 Background: Prognostic factors such as the IMDC criteria have included all types of targeted therapy. This study assesses clinical outcomes and provide benchmarks for mRCC pts treated specifically with 1L SUN in the real world to provide contemporary benchmarks for outcomes and survival. Methods: Clear cell mRCC pts initiating SUN as 1L therapy between 2010-2018 were included in a retrospective database study. Kaplan Meier analysis was used to estimate median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS: time to death) by IMDC risk groups based on Karnofsky Performance Status < 80%, diagnosis to treatment interval < 1 year, anemia, neutrophilia, hypercalcemia and thrombocytosis. Results: Among 1,769 1L SUN pts with clear cell in the RW clinical database, 318 (18%) had favorable, 1,031 (58%) had intermediate and 420 (24%) had poor IMDC risk. Across the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, pts had similar mean age in years, gender distribution, and year of SUN initiation (age: 63.8, 62.9 and 62.6; male: 74%, 75%, and 72%; SUN initiation year of 2010-2013: all 71%). In the favorable risk group, 99% received nephrectomy vs 88% in intermediate and 66% in poor risk group. Median TTD was 15.0, 8.5, and 4.2 months (mos) in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and was 7.1 mos in the combined intermediate/poor risk groups. Median OS was 52.1, 31.5, and 9.8 mos in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and was 23.2 mos in the combined intermediate/poor risk groups. Conclusions: This real world study based on a contemporary cohort of 1L SUN mRCC pts found a median OS of 52 mos which sets a new benchmark for clear cell mRCC in the favorable risk group. OS in the intermediate and poor risk groups are similar to previous reports. This affects pt counselling and clinical trial design.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib (SU) and pazopanib (PZ) are standards of care for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, how the efficacy of these drugs translates into effectiveness on a population-based level is unknown.PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and performed proportional hazard regression adjusting for IMDC prognostic groups. Second-line OS (OS2) and second-line PFS (PFS2) were also evaluated.RESULTS: We obtained data from 7438 patients with mRCC treated with either first-line SU (n = 6519) or PZ (n = 919) with an overall median follow-up of 40.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.2-42.1). There were no significant differences in IMDC prognostic groups (p = 0.36). There was no OS difference between SU and PZ (22.3 versus 22.6 months, respectively, p = 0.65). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the hazard ratio (HR) of death for PZ versus SU was 1.03 (95% CI 0.92-1.17, p = 0.58). There was no PFS difference between SU and PZ (8.4 versus 8.3 months, respectively, p = 0.17). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the HR for PFS for PZ versus SU was 1.08 (95% CI 0.981-1.19, p = 0.12). There was no difference in RR between SU and PZ (30% versus 28%, respectively, p = 0.15). We also found no difference in any second-line treatment between either post-SU or post-PZ groups for OS2 (13.1 versus 11 months, p = 0.27) and PFS2 (3.7 versus 5.0 months, p = 0.07).CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed in real-world practice that SU and PZ have similar efficacy in the first-line setting for mRCC and do not affect outcomes with subsequent second-line treatment.

BACKGROUND: Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), if elevated, is associated with worse outcomes in several malignancies. OBJECTIVE: Investigation of NLR at baseline and during therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of 1199 patients from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC cohort) and 4350 patients from 12 prospective randomized trials (validation cohort). INTERVENTION: Targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: NLR was examined at baseline and 6 (± 2) wk later. A landmark analysis at 8 wk was conducted to explore the prognostic value of relative NLR change on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate using Cox or logistic regression models, adjusted for variables in IMDC score and NLR values at baseline. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Higher NLR at baseline was associated with shorter OS and PFS (Hazard Ratios [HR] per 1 unit increase in log-transformed NLR = 1.69 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.46-1.95] and 1.30 [95% CI = 1.15-1.48], respectively). Compared with no change (decrease < 25% to increase < 25%, reference), increase NLR at Week 6 by 25-50% and > 75% was associated with poor OS (HR=1.55 [95% CI=1.10-2.18] and 2.31 [95% CI=1.64-3.25], respectively), poor PFS (HR=1.46 [95% CI=1.04-2.03], 1.76 [95% CI=1.23-2.52], respectively), and reduced objective response rate (odds ratios = 0.77 [95% CI=0.37-1.63] and 0.24 [95% CI=0.08-0.72], respectively). By contrast, a decrease of 25-50% was associated with improved outcomes. Findings were confirmed in the validation cohort. The study is limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no change, early decline of NLR is associated with favorable outcomes, whereas an increase is associated with worse outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found that the proportion of immune cells in the blood is of prognostic value, namely that a decrease of the proportion of neutrophils-to-lymphocytes is associated with more favorable outcomes while an increase had the opposite effect.

615 Background: The immuno-oncology (IO) checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) cabozantinib have both been shown in phase III clinical trials to be effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after progression on first-line therapy. We sought to explore the real-world efficacy of these therapies in second-line mRCC. Methods: Using the IMDC database, a retrospective analysis was performed on mRCC patients treated with second-line nivolumab or cabozantinib. Baseline characteristics and IMDC risk factors were collected. Overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), and response rates were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences. Results: 225 patients were treated with nivolumab and 53 with cabozantinib. There was no significant difference in OS identified, with a mOS for nivolumab of 22.1 months (95% CI 17.18 – NR) and 23.7 months (95% CI 15.52 vs. NR) for cabozantinib, p = 0.6053. The TTF was also similar, with 6.90 months (95% CI 4.60 – 9.20) for nivolumab versus 7.39 months (95% CI 5.52 – 12.85) for cabozantinib, p = 0.1983. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for nivolumab vs. cabozantinib was 1.297 (95% CI – 0.728 – 2.312), p = 0.3775. Conclusions: Nivolumab and cabozantinib appear to have similar efficacy in terms of OS and TTF in this real-world patient population, thus both novel agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line therapy. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether lymph node metastases (LNM) and their localization negatively affect clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinicopathological features, survival outcome, and treatment response in mRCC patients with LNM versus those without LNM after treatment with targeted therapies (TT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n=2996) were first analyzed without consideration of lymph node (LN) localization or histologic subtype. Additional analyses (n=1536) were performed in subgroups of patients with supradiaphragmatic (SPD) LNM, subdiaphragmatic (SBD) LNM, and patients with LNM in both locations (SPD+/SBD+) without histologic considerations, and then separately in clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) patients, respectively. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and the secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: All patients with LNM had worse PFS (p=0.001) and OS (p

BACKGROUND: The benefit of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for overall survival (OS) is unclear in patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the era of targeted therapy.OBJECTIVE: To determine OS benefit of CN compared with no CN in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapies.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective data from patients with synchronous mRCC (n=1658) from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were used to compare 982 mRCC patients who had a CN with 676 mRCC patients who did not.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS was compared and hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for IMDC poor prognostic criteria.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Patients who had CN had better IMDC prognostic profiles versus those without (favorable, intermediate, or poor in 9%, 63%, and 28% vs 1%, 45%, and 54%, respectively). The median OS of patients with CN versus without CN was 20.6 versus 9.5 mo (pCONCLUSIONS: CN is beneficial in synchronous mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy, even after adjusting for prognostic factors. Patients with estimated survival times PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the survival outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients who did or did not have the primary tumor removed. We found that most patients benefited from tumor removal, except for those with four or more IMDC risk factors.

Questions about optimal sequencing of systemic therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and whether cross-resistance occurs between different drugs remain largely unanswered. Previous studies have produced conflicting data on the activity of docetaxel in patients who did not attain a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response to abiraterone acetate (abiraterone). We investigated whether the biochemical response to abiraterone is associated with efficacy of subsequent docetaxel therapy.mCRPC patients treated with docetaxel after abiraterone were retrospectively identified at three Canadian institutions. Patients who had also received docetaxel prior to abiraterone were termed "docetaxel-experienced," while those not treated with docetaxel prior to abiraterone were termed "docetaxel-naïve." Treatment outcomes on docetaxel were stratified by prior response to abiraterone and compared using χ(2) -square test for confirmed PSA response rate (≥ 50% decline from baseline maintained for ≥ 3 weeks) and the log-rank method for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Eighty-six patients were treated with abiraterone, of whom 49 were docetaxel-experienced and 37 were docetaxel-naïve. Prior PSA response to abiraterone was no decline,50% decline and ≥ 50% decline in 37%, 26%, and 37% of patients respectively. The overall PSA response rate to docetaxel was 34.9%, median PFS was 4.0 months and median OS was 11.66 months. Notably, no differences were seen in confirmed PSA response rates (38% vs. 36% vs. 31%, P = 0.86), median PFS (4.04 months vs. 3.94 months vs. 4.24 months, P = 0.43) and median OS (11.86 months vs. 15.38 months vs. 11.00 months, P = 0.56) on docetaxel for patients with no PSA decline,50% decline and ≥ 50% decline on abiraterone respectively. Importantly, PSA response rates to docetaxel were comparable in the docetaxel-experienced and docetaxel-naïve cohorts and were not linked to prior response to abiraterone in either group.Activity of docetaxel was not associated with the biochemical response to prior abiraterone therapy. These data suggest that prior response to abiraterone should not influence decisions on subsequent use of docetaxel in mCRPC.

4554Background: Metastatic papRCC is the second most prevalent type of renal cell carcinoma, next to clear cell RCC (ccRCC). Outcome on therapy in metastatic papRCC remains poorly characterized in ...

544 Background: Sunitinib (SU) and Pazopanib (PZ) have been compared head-to-head in the first-line phase III COMPARZ study in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We compared SU versus PZ, to confirm outcomes and subsequent second-line therapy efficacy in a population-based setting. Methods: We used the IMDC to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and performed proportional hazard regression adjusting for IMDC prognostic groups. Second-line OS2 and PFS2 were also evaluated. Results: We obtained data from 3,606 patients with mRCC treated with either first line SU (n=3226) or PZ (n=380) with an overall median follow-up of 43.5 months (m) (CI95% 41.4 – 46.4). IMDC risk group distribution for favorable prognosis was 440 (17.3%) for SU vs 72 (25%) for PZ, intermediate prognosis 1414 (55.6%) for SU vs 153 (53%) for PZ, poor prognosis 689 (27.1%) for SU vs 62 (22%) for PZ, p= 0.0027. We found no difference between SU vs. PZ for OS (20.1 [CI95% 18.76-21.42] vs. 23.68 m [CI95% 19.54 - 28.81] p=0.19), PFS (7.22 [CI95% 6.76 - 7.78] vs. 6.83 m [CI95% 5.58 - 8.27] p=0.49). The RR was similar in both groups (Table 1). Adjusted HR for OS and PFS were 0.952 (CI95% 0.788 – 1.150 p=0.61) and 1.052 (CI95% 0.908 – 1.220 p = 0.49), respectively. We also found no difference in any second-line treatment between either post-SU vs. post-PZ groups for OS2 (12.88 [CI95% 11.89 – 14.19] vs. 12.91 m [CI95% 10.3 – 19.1] p=0.47) and PFS2 (3.67 [CI95% 3.38 – 3.87] vs. 4.53 m [CI95% 3.08 – 5.35] p=0.4). There was no statistical difference in OS2 and PFS2 if everolimus was used after SU or PZ (p = 0.33 and p = 0.41, respectively) or if axitinib was used after SU or PZ (p = 0.73 and p = 0.72, respectively). Conclusions: We confirmed in real world practice, that SU and PZ have similar efficacy in the first-line setting for mRCC and do not affect outcomes with subsequent second-line treatment. [Table: see text]