Search

Background: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) catabolises ∼85% of the administered dose of fluoropyrimidines. Functional DPYD gene variants cause reduced/abrogated DPD activity. DPYD variants analysis may help for defining individual patients' risk of fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity.Methods: The TOSCA Italian randomised trial enrolled colon cancer patients for 3 or 6 months of either FOLFOX-4 or XELOX adjuvant chemotherapy. In an ancillary pharmacogenetic study, 10 DPYD variants (*2A rs3918290 G>A, *13 rs55886062 T>G, rs67376798 A>T, *4 rs1801158 G>A, *5 rs1801159 A>G, *6 rs1801160 G>A, *9A rs1801265 T>C, rs2297595 A>G, rs17376848 T>C, and rs75017182 C>G), were retrospectively tested for associations with ⩾grade 3 fluoropyrimidine-related adverse events (FAEs). An association analysis and a time-to-toxicity (TTT) analysis were planned. To adjust for multiple testing, the Benjamini and Hochberg's False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure was used.Results: FAEs occurred in 194 out of 508 assessable patients (38.2%). In the association analysis, FAEs occurred more frequently in *6 rs1801160 A allele carriers (FDR=0.0083). At multivariate TTT analysis, significant associations were found for *6 rs1801160 A allele carriers (FDR<0.0001), *2A rs3918290 A allele carriers (FDR<0.0001), and rs2297595 GG genotype carriers (FDR=0.0014). Neutropenia was the most common FAEs (28.5%). *6 rs1801160 (FDR<0.0001), and *2A rs3918290 (FDR=0.0004) variant alleles were significantly associated with time to neutropenia.Conclusions: This study adds evidence on the role of DPYD pharmacogenetics for safety of patients undergoing fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The treatment of heavily pretreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) represents an unmet medical need and is still challenging., Objectives: The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of the lenvatinib plus everolimus combination and the secondary objective was the toxicity profile of this combination., Design: We conducted a longitudinal retrospective study examining mRCC patients pre-treated with one or more lines of therapy among different cancer centers in Italy., Methods: The study included patients who received the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus as either a second-line treatment or beyond. We assessed progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), and toxicity profile. In addition, we explored the potential relationship between treatment effectiveness and clinical and laboratory parameters., Results: In all, 33 patients were assessed, the median age was 60 years, 57% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1-2 and. 63% received ⩾ 3 prior lines of therapy. 62% were 'intermediate risk' according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium and 30% were 'poor risk'. The RR was 42% (no complete response), 18% stable disease. Median OS was 11.2 months (95% CI 6.8-19.9), median PFS was 6.7 months (95% CI 0.6-30.8), and median TTF was 6.7 months (95% CI 4.8-16.6). A shorter OS was significantly associated with lymph node metastases ( p  = 0.043, 95% CI), neutrophils/ lymphocytes ratio (NLR) ⩾ 3 ( p  = 0.007), hemoglobin/red cell distribution width ratio cutoff value <0.7 was significant ( p  = 0.03) while a shorter PFS was associated with lung ( p  = 0.048) and brain metastases ( p  = 0.023). The most frequent G1 toxicity was diarrhea (24%), G2 was fatigue (30%), and hypertension and skin toxicity (6%) for G3., Conclusion: Our findings suggest a clinically relevant effectiveness of lenvatinib plus everolimus combination with an acceptable toxicity profile for heavily pretreated patients with mRCC., Competing Interests: V.C. has served as a consultant/advisory board member for Janssen, Astellas, Merck, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Bayer and has received speaker honoraria or travel support from Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Bayer, and Sanofi. E.R. had a role as consultant for Bristol Meyers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore, and Pfizer., (© The Author(s), 2024.)

In the advanced cancer setting, low psychological functioning is a common symptom and its deleterious impact on health outcomes is well established. Yet, the beneficial role of positive psychological well-being (PPWB) on several clinical conditions has been demonstrated. Early palliative care (EPC) is a recent value-based model consisting of the early integration of palliative care into standard care for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. While the late palliative care primary offers short-term interventions, predominantly pharmacological in nature and limited to physical symptom reduction, EPC has the potential to act over a longer term, enabling specific interventions aimed at promoting PPWB. This narrative review examines nine English studies retrieved from MEDLINE/PubMed, published up to October 2023, focusing on EPC and three dimensions of PPWB: hope, gratitude, and death acceptance. These dimensions consistently emerge in our clinical experience within the EPC setting for advanced cancer patients and appear to contribute to its clinical efficacy. The choice of a narrative review reflects the novelty of the topic, the limited existing research, and the need to incorporate a variety of methodological approaches for a comprehensive exploration.

The early referral to palliative care (PC) represents a successful value-based model with proven benefits regarding the quality of life and clinical outcomes for advanced cancer patients and their caregivers. Yet, its provision remains typically confined to the last weeks of life as per the historical, late PC model. The stigma according to which PC represents end-of-life care has been identified as the root of the problem. To explore the presence and effects of the stigma in a clinical context, we surveyed 78 patients and 110 caregivers (mean age: 71.7 and 60.7, respectively) on early PC to study what their perception of PC was before their direct experience. The responses were analyzed through a qualitative descriptive approach. The participants explicitly mentioned a lack of knowledge about PC (53% of the sample), which they identified also among physicians and the population (13%); an identification of PC with the late PC model (53%); and a detrimental reaction to the proposal of an early PC referral (83%). However, the participants explicitly mentioned that a direct experience of early PC allowed for an acquired awareness of early PC meaning and benefits (52%), as well as a comprehension of its differences with late PC (34%); the regret for the delayed referral (8%); the perception of the word "palliative" as a barrier (21%); and the belief that early PC should be part of the cancer routine practice (25%). A comprehensive multi-level intervention is necessary for a widespread understanding of the essence of anticipated PC.

Background: The prospective multicentre observational INVIDIa-2 study investigated the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). In this secondary analysis of the original trial, we aimed to assess the outcomes of patients to immunotherapy based on vaccine administration., Methods: The original study enrolled patients with advanced solid tumours receiving ICI at 82 Italian Oncology Units from Oct 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2020. The trial's primary endpoint was the time-adjusted incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) until April 30, 2020, the results of which were reported previously. Secondary endpoints (data cut-off Jan 31, 2022) included the outcomes of patients to immunotherapy based on vaccine administration, for which the final results are reported herein. A propensity score matching by age, sex, performance status, primary tumour site, comorbidities, and smoking habits was planned for the present analysis. Only patients with available data for these variables were included. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease-control rate (DCR)., Findings: The original study population consisted of 1188 evaluable patients. After a propensity score matching, 1004 patients were considered (502 vaccinated and 502 unvaccinated), and 986 of them were evaluable for overall survival (OS). At the median follow-up of 20 months, the influenza vaccination demonstrated a favourable impact on the outcome receiving ICI in terms of median OS [27.0 months (CI 19.5-34.6) in vaccinated vs. 20.9 months (16.6-25.2) in unvaccinated, p = 0.003], median progression-free survival [12.5 months (CI 10.4-14.6) vs. 9.6 months (CI 7.9-11.4), p = 0.049], and disease-control rate (74.7% vs. 66.5%, p = 0.005). The multivariable analyses confirmed the favourable impact of influenza vaccination in terms of OS (HR 0.75, 95% C.I. 0.62-0.92; p = 0.005) and DCR (OR 1.47, 95% C.I. 1.11-1.96; p = 0.007)., Interpretation: The INVIDIa-2 study results suggest a favourable immunological impact of influenza vaccination on the outcome of cancer patients receiving ICI immunotherapy, further encouraging the vaccine recommendation in this population and supporting translational investigations about the possible synergy between antiviral and antitumour immunity., Funding: The Federation of Italian Cooperative Oncology Groups (FICOG), Roche S.p.A., and Seqirus., Competing Interests: The Federation of Italian Cooperative Oncology Groups (FICOG) received funding for the present study from Roche S.p.A. and Seqirus, and outside the present research from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), and Sanofi. MB received funding for the present study from Roche S.p.A. and Seqirus (through FICOG as Institution, no personal fees). She also received, outside the current work: research funding from Pfizer and Novartis (through Institutions); honoraria as a speaker at scientific events (personal fees) by BMS, MSD, IPSEN, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; as a consultant for advisory role (personal fees) by IPSEN, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, and Merck; personal fees for copyright transfer by Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Pierre-Fabre, MSD, IPSEN, Pfizer, and Sanofi. AC received speakers fees/grant consultancies from Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD, EISAI, IQVIA, and OncoC4. UDG has served as a consultant for Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Pharmamar; he received research funding from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Sanofi; and received travel funds from BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche during the conduct of the study. MDM reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Astellas, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Takeda, grants from Tesaro GSK, outside the submitted work. SB received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and in advisory role by BMS, Pfizer; MSD, Ipsen, Roche S.p.A., Eli-Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novartis; he also received research funding from Novartis. VS participated, with personal fees, to advisory boards and speaker's bureaus for Roche S.p.A. SC declared his role in an international board for Eli Lilly international. AR declares Advisory Board activity for Bristol, Pfizer, Bayer, and Kyowa Kirin, and speaker honorarium from Roche Diagnostics. PAZ reports outside the submitted work personal fees for advisory role, speaker engagements and travel and accommodation expenses from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer. MS received honoraria for advisory role from Janssen, and travel and accommodation expenses from Janssen, IPSEN, BMS, Astellas, and Pfizer. ER had a role as consultant for MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore and Pfizer. FG received personal fees from Eli Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Merck, Takeda, Bayer, Novartis, and AMGEN for consulting activity; from Eli Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, BMS, AMGEN, MSD, Celgene, and Pierre Fabre for speakers bureaus. GG declares speaker and advisory fees from MSD; Travels and Accommodations from AstraZeneca. DaS declares honoraria for advisory board from Astellas, Janssen, Bayer, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche. FM received personal fees for advisory role by Roche, MSD, Takeda, Novartis, Sanofi. RRS received travel grants from AIOM and CIPOMO, and declares memberships in AIOM, CIPOMO, ESMO, ASCO and Rotary Club. SP received honoraria as a speaker from Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD, and GSK. DG received honoraria as a speaker from Amgen. MR received honoraria as speaker/consultant by MSD, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-MyersSquibb (BMS), Novartis, and Pfizer. All the cited competing interests were outside the current work and not related to the content of our manuscript if not differently specified. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: Oncologists are often concerned that talking about death with patients may hinder their relationship. However, the views of death held by patients have not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to describe the perception of death among patients with advanced cancer receiving early palliative care (EPC) and their caregivers., Material and Methods: Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed on 2 databases: (a) transcripts of open-ended questionnaires administered to 130 cancer patients receiving EPC with a mean age of 68.4 years and to 115 primary caregivers of patients on EPC with a mean age of 56.8; (b) texts collected from an Italian forum, containing instances of web-mediated interactions between patients and their caregivers., Results: Quantitative analysis shows that: (a) patients and caregivers are not afraid of speaking about death; (b) patients and caregivers on EPC use the word "death" significantly more than patients on standard oncology care (SOC) and their caregivers (P < .0001). For both participants on EPC and SOC, the adjectives and verbs associated with the word "death" have positive connotations; however, these associations are significantly more frequent for participants on EPC (verbs, Ps < .0001; adjectives, Ps < .003). Qualitative analysis reveals that these positive connotations refer to an actual, positive experience of the end of life in the EPC group and a wish or a negated event in the SOC group., Conclusions: EPC interventions, along with proper physician-patient communication, may be associated with an increased acceptance of death in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Considerable numbers of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) develop bone metastases (BoM). Their impact on the efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is not yet investigated., Methods: Between July 2014 and August 2020 data on pts treated with single-agent ICIs after failure of at least 1 previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease, were retrospectively collected across 14 Italian centers. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analysis was performed evaluating potential prognostic factors for OS and PFS. Each factor was evaluated in univariable (UVA) and multivariable analysis (MVA)., Results: A total of 208 evaluable patients treated with ICIs were identified, including 122 (59%) without BoM (BoM-) and 86 (41%) with bone metastases (BoM+). After a median follow-up of 22.3 months, BoM+ patients showed shorter OS (median 3.9 vs 7.8 months, HR 1.59 [95%CI, 1.15-2.20], P = .005) and shorter PFS (median 2.0 vs 2.6 months, HR 1.76 [95%CI, 1.31-2.37], P < .001). Probability of being alive was 62% vs 40% after 6 months, 38% vs 23% after 1 year and 24% vs 13% after 2 years, in BoM- and BoM+ respectively. Within each Bellmunt score, OS and PFS of BoM+ patients were shorter. Both presence of BoM and higher Bellmunt risk score were significantly associated with shorter OS and PFS in UVA and MVA., Conclusion: Patients treated with single-agent ICIs for BoM+ mUC have a dismal prognosis compared to BoM-. Further research is needed to understand the mechanism behind these outcomes., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Oncologists' fear of taking away hope from patients when proposing early palliative care (EPC) is a barrier to the implementation of this model. This study explores hope perceptions among bereaved caregivers of onco-hematologic patients who received EPC., Materials and Methods: Open-ended questionnaires were administered to 36 primary caregivers of patients who received EPC (26 solid and 10 hematologic cancer patients; mean age: 51.4 years, range age: 20-74), at 2 cancer centers, 2 months to 3 years after a patient death. Definitions of hope in the caregivers' narratives were analyzed through a directed approach to content analysis. Results were complemented with automated lexicographic analysis., Results: Caregivers perceived hope mainly as resilience and as expectations based on what they were told about the patients' clinical conditions. Their hope was bolstered by trusting relationships with the healthcare teams. EPC interventions were recalled as the major support for hope, both during the illness and after the death of the patient. The automated quantitative lexical analysis provided deeper insights into the links between hope, truth, and trust., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that telling the truth about an incurable onco-hematologic disease and beginning EPC might be the combination of factors triggering hope in the setting of incurable cancer., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Nivolumab showed an overall survival (OS) benefit in pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The role of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in mRCC remains to be defined., Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SBRT in combination with nivolumab in second- and third-line mRCC patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: The NIVES study was a phase II, single-arm, multicenter trial in patients with mRCC with measurable metastatic sites who progressed after antiangiogenic therapy, of whom at least one was suitable for SBRT., Intervention: The patients received SBRT to a lesion at a dose of 10 Gy in three fractions for 7 d from the first infusion of nivolumab. Nivolumab was given at an initial dose of 240 mg every 14 d for 6 mo and then 480 mg q4-weekly in responding patients., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: We hypothesized that nivolumab plus SBRT improves the objective response rate (ORR) compared with nivolumab alone from 25% (derived from historical controls) to 40%. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), OS, disease control rate (DCR) of irradiated and nonirradiated metastases, and safety., Results and Limitations: Sixty-nine patients were enrolled from July 2017 to March 2019. The ORR was 17% and the DCR was 55%. The median PFS was 5.6 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-7.1) and median OS 20 mo (95% CI, 17-not reached). After 1.5 yr of follow-up, 23 patients died. The median time to treatment response was 2.8 mo and median duration of response was 14 mo. No new safety concerns arose., Conclusions: We did not find sufficient evidence to suggest that nivolumab in combination with SBRT provides an added benefit in pretreated mRCC patients; it should however be evaluated in patients with oligometastatic or oligoprogressive disease., Patient Summary: Nivolumab in combination with stereotactic body radiotherapy does not provide evidence of increased outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients. However this approach was safe and showed a good response of the irradiated lesions., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cabozantinib improves survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after prior antiangiogenics. The best treatment at disease progression (PD) is unknown. Being also a AXL/MET inhibitor, involved in acquired resistance, we hypothesized a prolonged tumor growth control in patients continuing cabozantinib despite PD., Research Design and Methods: This retrospective multicenter study enrolled patients receiving cabozantinib after the first line between 2014 and 2020. We compared patients maintaining cabozantinib after first PD due to clinical benefit and good tolerability with those who changed therapy. The postprogression survival (PPS) of both was our primary endpoint., Results: We analyzed 89 patients: 45 received cabozantinib beyond PD and 44 switched therapy. 40.4%, 31.5%, and 28.1% of patients received 1, 2, or >2 prior treatment, respectively. 84.3% were intermediate-poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database risk. Patients continuing cabozantinib showed a higher response rate to cabozantinib before PD (46.7% vs 25%, p = 0.03) and were more heavily pretreated. Continuing cabozantinib showed a significantly longer PPS compared with switching therapy (median PPS 16.9 vs 13.2 months, HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.48-0.92, p = 0.011)., Conclusions: We observed longer PPS in patients continuing cabozantinib beyond PD, suggesting that this could be an effective option.

Background: Little is known about the underlying mechanisms through which early palliative care (EPC) improves multiple outcomes in patients with cancer and their caregivers. The aim of this study was to qualitatively and quantitatively analyze patients' and caregivers' thoughts and emotional and cognitive perceptions about the disease prior to and during the EPC intervention, and in the end of life, following the exposure to EPC., Materials and Methods: Seventy-seven patients with advanced cancer and 48 caregivers from two cancer centers participated in semistructured interviews. Their reports were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed by the means of the grounded theory and a text-analysis program., Results: Participants reported their past as overwhelmed by unmanaged symptoms, with detrimental physical and psychosocial consequences. The EPC intervention allowed a prompt resolution of symptoms and of their consequences and empowerment, an appreciation of its multidimensional approach, its focus on the person and its environment, and the need for EPC for oncologic populations. Patients reported that conversations with the EPC team increased their acceptance of end of life and their expectation of a painless future. Quantitative analysis revealed higher use of Negative Affects (p < .001) and Biological Processes words (p < .001) when discussing the past; Agency words when discussing the present (p < .001); Positive Affects (p < .001), Optimism (p = .002), and Insight Thinking words (p < .001) when discussing the present and the future; and Anxiety (p = .002) and Sadness words (p = .003) when discussing the future., Conclusion: Overall, participants perceived EPC to be beneficial. Our findings suggest that emotional and cognitive processes centered on communication underlie the benefits experienced by participants on EPC., Implications for Practice: By qualitative and quantitative analyses of the emotional and cognitive perceptions of cancer patients and their caregivers about their experiences before and during EPC interventions, this study may help physicians/nurses to focus on the disease perception by patients/caregivers and the benefits of EPC, as a standard practice. The analysis of words used by patients/caregivers provides a proxy for their psychological condition and support in tailoring an EPC intervention, based on individual needs. This study highlights that the relationship of the triad EPC team/patients/caregivers may rise as a therapeutic tool, allowing increasing awareness and progressive acceptance of the idea of death., (© 2021 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Considering the growing genitourinary (GU) cancer population undergoing systemic treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we planned a clinical audit in 24 Italian institutions treating GU malignancies., Objective: The primary objective was investigating the clinical impact of COVID-19 in GU cancer patients undergoing ICI-based therapy during the first outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 contagion in Italy., Design Setting and Participants: The included centers were 24 Oncology Departments. Two online forms were completed by the responsible Oncology Consultants, respectively, for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients receiving at least one administration of ICIs between 31 January 2020 and 30 June 2020., Results and Limitation: In total, 287 mRCC patients and 130 mUC patients were included. The COVID-19 incidence was, respectively, 3.5%, with mortality 1%, in mRCC patients and 7.7%, with mortality 3.1%, in mUC patients. In both groups, 40% of patients developing COVID-19 permanently discontinued anticancer treatment. The pre-test SARS-CoV-2 probability in the subgroup of patients who underwent nasal/pharyngeal swab ranged from 14% in mRCC to 26% in mUC. The main limitation of the work was its nature of audit: data were not recorded at the single-patient level., Conclusion: GU cancer patients undergoing active treatment with ICIs have meaningful risk factors for developing severe events from COVID-19 and permanent discontinuation of therapy after the infection. Treatment delays due to organizational issues during the pandemic were unlikely to affect the treatment outcome in this population., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest for the present article, except those reported herein: Melissa Bersanelli received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer, and as a consultant for advisory role by Novartis, BMS, IPSEN, and Pfizer; she also received fees for copyright transfer by Sciclone Pharmaceuticals and research funding by Roche S.p.A., Seqirus UK, Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi Genzyme. Sebastiano Buti received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and advisory role by BMS, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Ipsen, Roche, Eli-Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novartis; he also received research funding from Novartis. Alessio Cortellini received consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, and BMS; and speakers’ fee from Novartis, Astellas, MSD, and AstraZeneca. Orazio Caffo received honoraria as a speaker by Astellas, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for advisory role by Astellas, Janssen, and MSD. Paolo Andrea Zucali reports outside the submitted work personal fees for advisory role, speaker engagements, and travel and accommodation expenses from MSD, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer. Camillo Porta received honoraria as a Consultant or Speaker for Angelini, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eisai, EUSA, General Electric, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer; acted as an Expert Testimony for EUSA and Pfizer; and was a Protocol Steering Committee Member of BMS, Eisai, and EUSA Pharma. Finally, he did receive travel support from Roche. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (© The Author(s), 2021.)

Background: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) correlate with adverse prognosis in patients with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer. Little data are available for renal cell carcinoma (RCC)., Materials and Methods: We designed a multicenter prospective observational study to assess the correlation between CTC counts and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic RCC treated with an antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor as a first-line regimen; overall survival (OS) and response were secondary objectives. CTC counts were enumerated by the CellSearch system at four time points: day 0 of treatment, day 28, day 56 and then at progression, or at 12 months in the absence of progression., Results: One hundred ninety-five eligible patients with a median age of 69 years were treated with sunitinib (77.5%) or pazopanib (21%). At baseline, 46.7% of patients had one or more CTCs per milliliter (range, 1 to 263). Thirty patients had at least three CTCs, with a median PFS of 5.8 versus 15 months in the remaining patients (p = .002; hazard ratio [HR], 1.99), independently of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium score at multivariate analysis (HR, 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-3.14). Patients with at least three CTCs had a shorter estimated OS of 13.8 months versus 52.8 months in those with fewer than three CTCs (p = .003; HR, 1.99; multivariate analysis HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.95-2.93). Baseline CTC counts did not correlate with response; neither did having CTC sequencing counts greater than or equal to one, two, three, four, or five., Conclusion: We provide prospective evidence that the presence of three or more CTCs at baseline is associated with a significantly shorter PFS and OS in patients with metastatic RCC., Implications for Practice: This prospective study evaluated whether the presence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in the peripheral blood correlates with activity of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study demonstrated that almost half of patients with metastatic RCC have at least one CTC in their blood and that those patients with at least three CTCs are at increased risk of early progressive disease and early death due to RCC. Studies incorporating CTC counts in the prognostic algorithms of metastatic RCC are warranted., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)