Search

BackgroundPatients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anticancer therapies.Patients and methodsPatients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between 17 March and 18 November 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anticancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients).ResultsA total of 4966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count; high absolute neutrophil count; low platelet count; abnormal creatinine; troponin; lactate dehydrogenase; and C-reactive protein were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anticancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality.ConclusionsClinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anticancer therapies.Clinical trial identifierNCT04354701.

Dental erosion is defined as irreversible loss of dental hard tissue, caused by acid condition in the oral cavity without bacterial involvement. One of the signs of dental erosion is calcium dissolution of the enamel. Yoghurt is a fermented beverage that has low pH level due to lactic acid. The aim of this study was to measure the solubility of calcium enamel after soaking in yoghurt for 12 and 18 hours. Twenty-four premolars were divided into 4 groups. Group A and B were soaked in milk for 12 and 18 hours; group C and D were soaked in yoghurt for 12 and 18 hours. Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) was used to measure the solubility of calcium from each sample. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and LSD (p < 0.05). This study indicated that soaking premolars in yoghurt for 18 hours has greater enamel calcium dissolution than in yoghurt for 12 hours. It can be concluded that prolonged soaking premolars in yoghurt will increase the calcium enamel dissolution.

Background: Axitinib (AG-013736) is an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of axitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell cancer who had failed on previous cytokine-based treatment.Methods: Between Oct 3, 2003, and April 7, 2004, 52 patients were enrolled. All patients who had at least one measurable target lesion received axitinib orally (starting dose 5 mg twice daily). The primary endpoint was objective response (ie, percentage of patients with confirmed complete response or partial response by use of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST] criteria. Secondary endpoints were duration of response, time to progression, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported health-related quality of life. This trial is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Cancer Institute website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00076011.Findings: In an intention-to-treat analysis, two complete and 21 partial responses were noted, for an objective response rate of 44.2% (95% CI 30.5-58.7). Median response duration was 23.0 months (20.9-not estimable; range 4.2-29.8). However, 12 of 23 initial responders progressed with response duration ranging from 4.2 months to 26.5 months. Additionally, 22 patients showed stable disease for longer than 8 weeks, including 13 patients with stable disease for 24 weeks or longer. Four patients had early disease progression. Three patients had missing response data. Median time to progression was 15.7 months (8.4-23.4, range 0.03-31.5) and median overall survival was 29.9 months (20.3-not estimable; range 2.4-35.8). Treatment-related adverse events included diarrhoea, hypertension, fatigue, nausea, and hoarseness. Treatment-related hypertension occurred in 30 patients and resolved with antihypertensive treatment in all but eight patients, of whom seven patients had a history of hypertension at baseline.Interpretation: Axitinib shows clinical activity in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal-cell cancer. Although 28 patients had grade 3 or grade 4 treatment-related adverse events, these adverse events were generally manageable and controlled by dose modification or supportive care, or both. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved significantly in recent years, leading to improved outcomes. The aim of this review is to provide clinicians with a practical guide for selecting first- and second-line treatments on the basis of current evidence., Methods: We critically evaluated systemic treatment strategies for mRCC. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase, alongside manual searches of guidelines and conference proceedings up to October 2024. A narrative review was performed to reach a consensus, with voting used to resolve differing opinions among authors., Key Findings and Limitations: First-line treatment options include immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Four combination regimens have been approved internationally. Owing to the lack of head-to-head trials and standardized biomarkers, treatment decisions rely on factors such as International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score, functional status, safety profiles, sarcomatoid features, use of immunosuppressive drugs, and need for immediate response. Despite advances, many patients will experience disease progression on ICI-based therapy, necessitating further treatment. The need for standardized second-line approaches remains unmet. TKIs, alone or with everolimus, show promising efficacy, while HIF2a inhibitors offer newer options with a favorable toxicity profile. Rechallenge with ICIs after early progression is not recommended., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: For optimal mRCC treatment selection, clinicians must carefully balance efficacy, toxicity, and patient preferences, especially when transitioning between first- and second-line therapies, to provide individualized care., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and durable response benefits versus sunitinib (SUN) with long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated analyses with 8 years of median follow-up from CheckMate 214., Patients and Methods: Patients with aRCC (N = 1096) were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × four doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. The endpoints included OS, independent radiology review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and IRRC-assessed objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) patients., Results: With 8 years (99.1 months) of median follow-up, the hazard ratio [HR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.72 (0.62-0.83) in ITT patients, 0.69 (0.59-0.81) in I/P patients, and 0.82 (0.60-1.13) in FAV patients. PFS probabilities at 90 months were 22.8% versus 10.8% (ITT), 25.4% versus 8.5% (I/P), and 12.7% versus 17.0% (FAV), respectively. ORR with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 39.5% versus 33.0% (ITT), 42.4% versus 27.5% (I/P), and 29.6% versus 51.6% (FAV). Rates of complete response were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (ITT, 12.0% versus 3.5%; I/P, 11.8% versus 2.6%; FAV, 12.8% versus 6.5%). The median duration of response (95% CI) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 76.2 versus 25.1 months [59.1 months-not estimable (NE) versus 19.8-33.2 months] in ITT patients, 82.8 versus 19.8 months (54.1 months-NE versus 16.4-26.4 months) in I/P patients, and 61.5 versus 33.2 months (27.8 months-NE versus 24.8-51.4 months) in FAV patients. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. Exploratory post hoc analyses are reported for FAV patients, those receiving subsequent therapy based on their response status, clinical subpopulations, and adverse events over time., Conclusions: Superior survival, durable response benefits, and a manageable safety profile were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 8 years, the longest phase III follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in aRCC., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: A clinically meaningful attribute of some immune-oncology (IO) regimens is potential durable clinical benefit during a treatment-free interval. We characterize treatment-free survival (TFS) with and without ongoing toxicity in trials of frontline IO-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC)., Experimental Design: Individual patient data were pooled by treatment arm from randomized trials submitted to the FDA evaluating IO-TKI combination in treatment-naïve aRCC with at least 30 months of median follow-up. OS, TFS, TFS with and without toxicity, and time to all protocol therapy cessation were assessed. TFS was estimated by 30-month restricted mean times, defined as area between Kaplan-Meier curves for two time-to-event endpoints originating at randomization: time to all protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death., Results: Three trials met criteria for analysis; 1,183 patients received IO-TKI versus 1,184 on control arms receiving TKI alone (sunitinib, SUN). IO-TKI and SUN groups spent 9% {2.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-3.5]} and 10% [2.9 months (95% CI, 2.1-3.8)] of the 30-month period alive and treatment-free, respectively. Mean TFS without grade ≥3 toxicity was 1.7 and 2.3 months in IO-TKI and SUN groups, respectively., Conclusions: In this post hoc partitioned survival analysis, TFS and TFS without toxicity appeared similar in the IO-TKI group compared with the SUN group. These findings may reflect contin-uation of TKI until progression per protocol design in all trials and discontinuation of IO after 2 years in two trials. See related commentary by Stadler and Karrison, p. 3098., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: The combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab is approved for patients with treatment-naïve, intermediate-, and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but duration of therapy and safety/efficacy of reinduction at progression is unknown. A phase II trial of intermittent ipilimumab/nivolumab with reinduction at progression was conducted (NCT03126331)., Patients and Methods: Patients with treatment-naïve mRCC were treated with induction ipilimumab/nivolumab followed by up to 24 weeks of maintenance nivolumab. Patients who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) were eligible for inclusion and entered a treatment-free observation period. Patients were restaged every 12 weeks. Patients with no disease progression (PD) remained off therapy. Upon PD, patients were re-challenged with 2 doses of ipilimumab/nivolumab every 3 weeks. Study objectives were to estimate success rate of observation in patients who achieve a CR/PR, and to assess toxicity in patients undergoing reinduction. The study accrued slower than expected and was closed prior to the anticipated accrual goal of 20 patients., Results: Nine patients were included; 89% male, median age 57, 67% clear-cell histology, and 78% intermediate-risk by IMDC criteria. Response to ipilimumab/nivolumab followed by nivolumab maintenance prior to enrollment was 33% CR and 67% PR. Most (78%) patients have remained off therapy, with a median treatment-free interval (TFI) of 34.3 months (range, 8.7-41.8). Two patients had PD off therapy and received 2 cycles of reinduction ipilimumab and nivolumab. No grade 3 or greater toxicities occurred with reinduction. Both patients developed PD at their first scans after reinduction., Conclusion: This prospective study demonstrates that patients with a radiographic response to ipilimumab/nivolumab can have prolonged treatment-free intervals. Further studies of de-escalation strategies are warranted., Trial Registration: NCT03126331 [Date of registration 4/27/2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03126331]., Competing Interests: Disclosure MCO has served in consulting or advisory roles for Eisai, Exelixis, Pfizer, Aveo, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb; served on speakers bureaus for Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck; received institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, Astra-Zeneca, Astellas, Aravive, and Surface Oncology; has received reimbursement for travel and accommodations expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Eisai, and Exelixis. AB receives consulting fees from EMD-Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai; honoraria from Eisai, Natera, Aveo Pharmaceuticals; research support from Natera, Aveo, Merck, Pfizer, Rubius Therapeutics, Roche, BMS. KEB receives research funding to the institution for preclinical research from Aravive, Arsenal, BMS-LCFA-IASLC, and Pionyr; and has received consulting fees from Alpine Bioscience, Aravive, Aveo, Astrazeneca, BMS, Exelixis, Eisai, Merck, Nimbus, Seagen, Sanofi. AM receives consulting fees from AVEO; honoraria from Integrity CME, Targeted Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Aptitude Health. SG Reports fees for consulting from Merck, BMS, Gilead, Seattle Genetics, EMD Sorono, Bayer, Foundation Medicine, Astellas; speaker's bureau fees from Gilead, Seattle Genetics, BMS; research funding to institution from Merck, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, QED, Seattle Genetics, Acrivion, EMD Sorono, Exelixis; owns stock in BionTech, Moderna, Nektar Therapeutics. BIR declares institutional funding from Exelixis, AVEO, Genentech, BMS, Arcus, Merck, Dragonfly Therapeutics, HiberCell, Incyte, Stata Oncology, ADC Therapeutics, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Adela, AstraZeneca, Pionyr, Tempus, VasGene Therapeutics, Gilead, POINT Biopharma, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Surface Oncology, and Aravive; has received consulting fees from BMS, Genentech, AVEO and Exelixis, Pfizer, Synthorx, Merck, Corvus, Surface Oncology, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, Eisai, Nikang Therapeutics, EUSA, Athenex, Debiopharm, and HiberCell., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immunotherapy can be associated with prolonged disease control even after cessation of treatment without the need for further cancer-directed therapy. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) can also persist after discontinuation of therapy. Treatment-free survival (TFS) with and without toxicity as a component of a partitioned survival model can characterize patient survival time, which is not captured by standard outcome measures., Methods: Data from 1096 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the CheckMate 214 trial were analyzed. TFS was defined as the area between two Kaplan-Meier curves for time from randomization to protocol therapy discontinuation and time from randomization to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated as the difference in 60-month restricted mean times with confidence intervals (CIs) obtained using bootstrap sampling. Time on protocol therapy and TFS were further characterized as time with and without grade 2+ and 3+TRAEs. Survival functions were estimated in subgroups including International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: At 5 years from randomization, 48% of patients treated with NIVO+IPI and 37% of patients treated with SUN were alive. In the intent-to-treat population, 18% of the NIVO+IPI-treated and 5% of SUN-treated patients are surviving treatment-free. For favorable-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 14.4 months for NIVO+IPI versus 5.5 months for SUN (difference 8.9 months (95% CI 4.9 to 12.8)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 5.0 and 2.1 months, respectively, and with grade 3+TRAEs was 1.2 and 0.3 months, respectively. For intermediate/poor-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 10.1 months for NIVO+IPI versus 4.1 months for SUN (difference 6.1 months (95% CI 4.2 to 7.9)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 4.0 versus 2.0 months, respectively, and 0.6 versus 0.3 months with grade 3+TRAEs., Conclusions: Although overall survival was similar, favorable-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI spent more time surviving treatment-free with and without toxicity versus SUN after 60 months of follow-up. Intermediate/poor-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI had longer survival and longer TFS without toxicity versus SUN., Trial Registration Number: NCT02231749., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CMM reports no conflicts of interest. OAJ reports no conflicts of interest. TP reports consulting or advisory roles with Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Roche, Exelixis, MSD, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, Eisai, MashupMD, Merck, and Incyte; travel, accommodations, expenses from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Ipsen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Astellas Pharma, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Seagen, Merck Serono, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, and MashupMD; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Exelixis, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai. RJM reports consulting or advisory roles with Eisai, Exelixis, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Calithera Biosciences, and AVEO; travel, accommodations, and expenses from BMS; and research funding to institution from Pfizer, BMS, Eisai, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Exelixis, Merck, and AVEO. NMT reports stock and other ownership interests with Amgen, Arcturus, Arcus Biosciences, BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Merck, Surface Oncology, Vanguard Health Care ETF, Xencor, First Trust Amex Biotech (FBT), Nuvation Bio, Revolution Medicines, and Spdr S&P Pharmaceuticals ETF; honoraria from BMS, Exelixis, Eisai Medical Research, Neoleukin Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Intellisphere, Oncorena, AstraZeneca/Merck, and Nektar Therapeutics; consulting or advisory roles with Oncorena, Merck Sharp & Dohme, BMS Foundation, and Nektar; and research funding to institution from Exelixis, BMS, Nektar, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Calithera Biosciences. C-HL reports research funding to institution from BMS, Calithera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Merck, and Pfizer; consulting or advisory roles with Amgen, BMS, Exelixis, Eisai, Merck, Pfizer, and EMD Serono; and honoraria from AiCME, Intellisphere, and Research to Practice. YT reports consulting or advisory roles with Eisai, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, BMS Japan, Chugai Pharma, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Merck, Pfizer, and MSD; and research funding to institution from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, and Takeda. MHV reports consulting or advisory roles with Novartis, GSK, Exelixis, Merck, Corvus, Calithera, and AVEO; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Takeda, Novartis; research funding with BMS and Roche/Genentech. ERP reports consulting or advisory roles with Seattle Genetics/Astellas, AstraZeneca, AVEO, BMS/Medarex, Calithera Biosciences, EMD Serono, Exelixis, IMV, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Merck, Signatera, Pfizer, and Regeneron; and research funding to institution from BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Astellas, and Genentech/Roche. TKC reports institutional and/or personal, paid and/or unpaid support for research, advisory boards, consultancy, and/or honoraria past 5 years, ongoing or not, from: Alkermes, Arcus Bio, AstraZeneca, Aravive, AVEO, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Neomorph, Nuscan/PrecedeBio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, CCO and others), outside the submitted work. Institutional patents filed on molecular alterations and immunotherapy response/toxicity, and ctDNA. Equity: Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio, CureResponse, InnDura Therapeutics, Primium. Committees: NCCN, GU Steering Committee, ASCO (BOD 6-2024-, ESMO, ACCRU, KidneyCan. Medical writing and editorial assistance support may have been funded by Communications companies in part. No speaker’s bureau. Mentored several non-US citizens on research projects with potential funding (in part) from non-US sources/Foreign Components. The institution (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) may have received additional independent funding of drug companies or/and royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter. TKC is supported in part by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE (2P50CA101942-16) and Program 5P30CA006516-56, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, Pan Mass Challenge, Hinda and Arthur Marcus Fund and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at DFCI. BIR reports consulting or advisory roles with Pfizer, Merck, BMS, AVEO, Surface Oncology, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Aravive, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Genentech, Alkermes, NiKang Therapeutics, EUSA Pharma, Athenex, Debiopharm Group, and HiberCell; leadership roles with MJH Life Sciences and MashupMD; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer, BMS, and Merck; stock and other ownership interests with PTC Therapeutics; and research funding to institution from Pfizer, Roche/ Genentech, BMS, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Incyte, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Seagen, Surface Oncology, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Aravive, Exelixis, AVEO, Arcus Biosciences, HiberCell, Stata, ADC Therapeutics, Dracen, Janssen, Adela, Pionyr, VasGene Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Point Therapeutics, and Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan. HJH reports consulting or advisory roles with BMS, Pfizer, Exelixis, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, ARMO BioSciences, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Surface Oncology, and Lilly; travel, accommodations, and expenses from BMS, Merck, Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis; honoraria from BMS; and research funding to institution from BMS, Merck, Aravive, and Surface Oncology. BE reports consulting or advisory roles with Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, AVEO, and Oncorena; travel, accommodations, and expenses from BMS, Ipsen, and MSD; honoraria from Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, and Oncorena; and research funding to institution from BMS. LA reports consulting or advisory roles to institution with Astellas, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; non-financial interests with Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, Roche, Exelixis, AVEO, AstraZeneca, MSD, ASCO, Kidney Foundation, and ESMO. LR reports employment with BMS and stock and other ownership interests with BMS. MBA reports consulting or advisory roles with Genentech, Novartis, BMS, Merck, Exelixis, Eisai, Agenus, Werewolf Pharma, Surface Oncology, Pyxis, Fathom Biotechnology, AVEO, Cota Healthcare, Idera, Ellipses Pharma, AstraZeneca, PACT Pharma, Pfizer, Scholar Rock, Asher Biotherapeutics, Takeda, Sanofi, Simcha Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Oncorena, and Pliant; stock and other ownership interests with Werewolf Pharma and Pyxis; and research funding to institution from BMS and Merck. MMR reports consulting or advisory roles (institution) with Ipsen and Debiopharm; personal fees from BMS and Tolmar Pharmaceuticals; grants from Novartis, Pfizer, Ipsen, TerSera, Merck, Ferring, Pierre Fabre, Roche, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and BMS. DFM reports consulting or advisory roles with BMS, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Exelixis, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Peloton Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Jounce Therapeutics, Alkermes, Lilly, Eisai, Calithera Biosciences, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Werewolf Therapeutics, Synthekine, AVEO, Sanofi, and Xilio Therapeutics; other relationship with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; research funding to institution from BMS, Merck, Genentech, Novartis, and Alkermes; and uncompensated relationships with X4 Pharma and AVEO., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In patients undergoing spine surgery for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), we sought to: (1) describe patterns of postoperative targeted systemic therapy and radiotherapy (RT), (2) compare perioperative outcomes among those treated with targeted systemic therapy to those without, and (3) evaluate the impact of targeted systemic therapy and/or RT on overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR)., Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing spine surgery for metastatic RCC from 2010 to 2021 was undertaken. Treatment groups were RT alone, targeted systemic therapy alone, dual therapy consisting of RT and targeted systemic therapy, and neither therapy. Multivariable Cox regression controlled for age, race, sex, insurance, and preoperative targeted systemic therapy., Results: Forty-nine patients underwent spine surgery for RCC. Postoperatively, 4 patients (8%) received RT alone, 19 (38.8%) targeted systemic therapy alone, 12 (24.5%) dual therapy, and 13 (28.6%) neither. All groups were similar in demographics, preoperative Karnofsky Performance Score ( P = 0.372), tumor size ( P = 0.413), readmissions ( P = 0.884), complications ( P = 0.272), Karnofsky Performance Score ( P = 0.466), and Modified McCormick Scale ( P = 0.980) at last follow-up. Higher 1-year survival was found in dual therapy (83.3%) compared with other therapies. OS was significantly longer in patients with dual therapy compared with other therapies (log-rank; P = 0.010). Multivariate Cox regression (HR = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.02-0.31, P < 0.001) showed longer OS in dual therapy compared with other therapies. Seven patients (14.3%) experienced LR, and a similar time to LR was found between groups (log-rank; P = 0.190)., Conclusion: In patients undergoing metastatic spine surgery for RCC, postoperative dual therapy demonstrated significantly higher 1-year survival and OS compared with other therapies., Clinical Relevance: Multidisciplinary management of metastatic RCC is necessary to ensure timely implementation of targeted systemic therapy and RT to improve outcomes., (This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Copyright © 2024 ISASS. To see more or order reprints or permissions, see http://ijssurgery.com.)

Background: The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) is associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) outcomes across different solid tumors, particularly in non-small cell lung cancer. Data regarding the prognostic and/or predictive role of LIPI in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are still scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether LIPI could be predictive of survival in mRCC patients., Methods: We used patient level data from three different prospective studies (NIVOREN trial: nivolumab; TORAVA trial: VEGF/VEGFR-targeted therapy (TT); CheckMate 214: nivolumab-ipilimumab vs sunitinib). LIPI was calculated based on a derived neutrophils/(leukocyte-neutrophil) ratio > 3 and lactate-dehydrogenase >upper limit of normal, classifying patients into three groups (LIPI good, 0 factors;LIPI intermediate (int), 1 factor;LIPI poor, 2 factors) and/or into two groups (LIPI good, 0 factors;LIPI int/poor, 1-2 factors) according to trial sample size. Primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: In the Nivolumab dataset (n = 619), LIPI was significantly associated with OS (LIPI-good 30.1 vs 13.8 months in the LIPI int/poor; HR= 0.47) and PFS (HR=0.74). In the VEGF/VEGFR-TT dataset (n = 159), only a correlation with PFS was observed. In the CheckMate214 dataset (n = 1084), LIPI was significantly associated with OS (nivolumab-ipilimumab OS LIPI good vs int/poor: HR=0.55, p < 0.0001; sunitinib: OS LIPI good vs int/poor: 0.38, p < 0.0001) in both treatment groups in univariate and multivariate analysis., Conclusions: Pretreatment-LIPI correlated with worse survival outcomes in mRCC treated with either ICI or antiangiogenic therapy, confirming LIPI's prognostic role in mRCC irrespective of systemic treatment used., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest LCA: Travel/accomodation: Pfizer, Ipsen. Honoraria: Ipsen, Janssen. PL: Travel accomodation: IPSEN, JANSSEN, Astellas, Pfizer, Chugai, Sanofi. Consulting/Advisory: Astellas, AZ, Sanofi, BMS. Grant: Servier. SN Honoraria: Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai. Travel/accomodation: Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Research funding: Ipsen, Pfizer and Merck Sharp & Dohme. GG: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Ipsen. RJM: Research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Pfizer, and Aveo Pharmaceuticals; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda. CC: Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Ipsen, Pfizer. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology. NT: Honorarium: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Eisai Medical Research, Exelixis, lntellisphere, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar Therapeutics, Neoleukin, Oncorena. Clinical Grants: Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Institutional Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Institutional Calithera Biosciences, Institutional Exelixis, Institutional Nektar Therapeutics, Institutional Novartis, Institutional. SO: Honoraria/advisory board: Astellas, Bayer, BSM, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi. travel support: Astellas, Bayer, BSM, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi. Grants: Astellas, Bayer, BSM, Ipsen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi. DFM: reported honoraria from BMS, Pfizer, Merck, Alkernes, EMD Serono, Eli Lilly and Company, Iovance, Eisai, Werewolf Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, and research funding from BMS, Merck, Genentech, Pfizer, Exelixis, X4 Pharma, and Alkermes. BL: Honoraria: Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology. HH: reported receiving grants from Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. PB: Member of the advisory board of Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, IPSEN, AMGEN, AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Astellas, Bayer, MSD, Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA), and GILEAD. EP: has received research funding from Astellas Pharma US, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., Peloton Therapeutics, and Pfizer, and serves as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Flatiron Health, Genentech, Merck & Co., and Seattle Genetics. DP: Consulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca. Research Funding: Astellas Pharma (Inst), Janssen-Cilag (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Pfizer (Inst). MGG: honoraria for consultancy/ advisory board: BMS, MSD, Ipsen, Pfizer, Eisai, astra Zeneca. Travel support: MSD, Ipsen. BR: serves as a consultant for and has received research funding from Pfizer, Merck, GNE/Roche, Peloton, Aveo, and BMS; has received research funding from AstraZeneca; serves as a consultant for Novartis, Synthorx, Compugen, Corvus, and Exelixis; and owns stock in PTC Therapeutics. BE: Honoraria: Pfizer, BMS, Travel: BMS, Ipsen, MSD. LA: Honoraria: Astellas Pharma, Eisai, Ipsen, F. Homann-La Roche, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp and Dohme. Travel: Merck Sharp and Dohme, BMS. CD, RJ, CWL and HDS have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To report the results of PADRES (Prior Axitinib as a Determinant of Outcome of Renal Surgery, NCT03438708), a study investigating neoadjuvant axitinib for tumours of high complexity with imperative indication for partial nephrectomy (PN)., Methods: We conducted a single-arm phase II clinical trial of localized (cT1b-cT3M0) clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with imperative indications for nephron preservation, where PN is a high-risk procedure due to complexity (RENAL score 10-12). Axitinib 5 mg was administered twice daily for 8 weeks with repeat imaging at completion, followed by surgery. The primary outcome was successful completion of planned PN following axitinib treatment. Secondary objectives included changes in tumour diameter, RENAL nephrometry score, renal function and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v1.1, and surgical complications., Results: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled (median age 69 years). Prior to therapy, twenty patients (74.0%) had ≥ clinical T3a staged tumours. Axitinib resulted in reductions in tumour diameter (7.5 vs 6.2 cm; P < 0.001) and RENAL score (11 vs 10; P < 0.001). Nine patients (33.3%) had partial response based on RECIST and nine (33.3%) were clinically downstaged. PN was performed in twenty patients (74.0%); twenty-five patients (96.2%) had negative margins. Six patients (22.2%) had Clavien III-IV complications. The median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (preoperative to last follow-up) was 8.5 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ., Conclusion: Neoadjuvant axitnib resulted in reductions in tumour size and complexity, enabling safe and feasible PN and functional preservation in patients with complex renal masses and imperative indication., (© 2023 BJU International.)

Checkpoint inhibition (CPI) is a standard therapeutic approach in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, not all patients respond to CPI, and the immune suppressive characteristics of the RCC tumor microenvironment may contribute to treatment failure. Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid Cells-2 (TREM2) is a transmembrane protein expressed on a subset of myeloid cells with M2-like anti-inflammatory properties that has previously been associated with disease recurrence after nephrectomy and poor outcomes when expressed at high levels. PY314 is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting TREM2 that depletes tumor-associated macrophages. In this study, the combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab was investigated in patients with CPI-refractory RCC. Eligible patients had clear cell RCC with disease progression on prior CPI either in combination or sequentially with VEGF-TKI. Patients were treated with PY314 10 mg/kg in combination with pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 21 days. The primary objective was to assess safety and tolerability and secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics and anti-tumor activity by RECIST v1.1. Seventeen patients were enrolled with a median age of 67 years, 82% male, 100% had prior CPI, and 76% had received three or more prior lines of therapy. The combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile with 47.1% any grade treatment-related adverse events (AE) (including only 5.9% grade ≥ 3), the most common being fatigue, pyrexia, nausea, and infusion-related reactions. One patient achieved a partial response (6%), and four patients had stable disease (24%) as their best response. The median PFS was 1.4 months (95% CI 1.2- 3.8). The combination of PY314 and pembrolizumab was safe, but the limited anti-tumor effect observed suggests that TREM2 targeting in conjunction with PD-1 blockade may not overcome resistance to prior CPI. Further investigation is warranted to determine if improved efficacy can be achieved in IO-naïve settings. Trial Registration: NCT04691375., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Tivozanib is an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Long-term exploratory analyses from the TIVO-3 trial in relapsed/refractory (R/R) RCC including patients (26%) with prior immuno-oncology (IO) therapy are reported., Methods: Patients with R/R advanced RCC that progressed with 2 or 3 prior systemic therapies (≥1 VEGFR TKI) were randomized to tivozanib 1.5 mg QD or sorafenib 400 mg BID, stratified by IMDC risk and previous therapy. Safety, investigator-assessed long-term progression-free survival (LT-PFS), and serial overall survival (OS) were assessed., Results: Mean time on treatment was 11.0 months with tivozanib (n = 175) and 6.3 months with sorafenib (n = 175). Fewer grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred with tivozanib (46%) than sorafenib (55%). Dose modification rates were lower with tivozanib than sorafenib across age/prior IO subgroups; prior IO therapy did not impact dose reductions or discontinuations in either arm. Landmark LT-PFS rates were higher with tivozanib (3 years: 12.3% vs 2.4%; 4 years: 7.6% vs 0%). After 22.8 months mean follow-up, the OS HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.14); when conditioned on 12-month landmark PFS, tivozanib showed significant OS improvement over sorafenib (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91; 2-sided P = .0221)., Conclusions: Tivozanib demonstrated a consistent safety profile and long-term survival benefit in patients with R/R advanced RCC who were alive and progression free at 12 months. These post hoc exploratory analyses of LT-PFS and conditional OS support a clinically meaningful improvement with tivozanib versus sorafenib in this advanced RCC population., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

The phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (N = 886) with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line avelumab + axitinib (A+Ax) versus sunitinib. We report novel findings from integrated analyses of longitudinal blood samples and baseline tumor tissue. PFS was associated with elevated lymphocyte levels in the sunitinib arm and an abundance of innate immune subsets in the A+Ax arm. Treatment with A+Ax led to greater T-cell repertoire modulation and less change in T-cell numbers versus sunitinib. In the A+Ax arm, patients with tumors harboring mutations in ≥2 of 10 previously identified PFS-associated genes (double mutants) had distinct circulating and tumor-infiltrating immunologic profiles versus those with wild-type or single-mutant tumors, suggesting a role for non-T-cell-mediated and non-natural killer cell-mediated mechanisms in double-mutant tumors. We provide evidence for different immunomodulatory mechanisms based on treatment (A+Ax vs. sunitinib) and tumor molecular subtypes., Significance: Our findings provide novel insights into the different immunomodulatory mechanisms governing responses in patients treated with avelumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) + axitinib or sunitinib (both VEGF inhibitors), highlighting the contribution of tumor biology to the complexity of the roles and interactions of infiltrating immune cells in response to these treatment regimens. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 384., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Combination treatment with immunotherapy agents and/or vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are a standard of care for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Novel therapeutic combinations that include the hypoxia-inducible factor 2α inhibitor belzutifan and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor quavonlimab are being investigated for their potential to further improve patient outcomes. This protocol describes the rationale and design of the randomized, phase III LITESPARK-012 study, which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib with or without belzutifan or quavonlimab as first-line treatment for advanced ccRCC. Results from this study may support triplet combination therapies as a potential new standard of care for advanced ccRCC. Clinical trial registry: NCT04736706 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Background: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, first-line avelumab + axitinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (favorable, intermediate, and poor); analyses of overall survival (OS) remain immature. Here, we report post hoc analyses of efficacy from the third interim analysis (data cut-off, April 2020) by the numbers of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline., Methods: Efficacy endpoints assessed were PFS, objective response, and best overall response per investigator assessment (RECIST v1.1) and OS. Best percentage change and percentage change from baseline in target tumor size over time during the study were also assessed., Results: In patients with 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4-6 IMDC risk factors, hazard ratios [HRs; 95% confidence interval (CIs)] for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.660 (0.356-1.223), 0.745 (0.524-1.059), 0.973 (0.668-1.417), 0.718 (0.414-1.248), and 0.443 (0.237-0.829), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.490-1.016), 0.709 (0.540-0.933), 0.711 (0.527-0.960), 0.501 (0.293-0.854), and 0.395 (0.214-0.727), respectively. In patients with 1, 2, 3, or ≥4 target tumor sites, HRs (95% CIs) for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.912 (0.640-1.299), 0.715 (0.507-1.006), 0.679 (0.442-1.044), and 0.747 (0.346-1.615), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.548-0.911), 0.552 (0.422-0.723), 0.856 (0.589-1.244), and 0.662 (0.329-1.332), respectively. Across all subgroups, analyses of objective response rate and complete response rate favored avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib, and a greater proportion of patients treated with avelumab + axitinib had tumor shrinkage., Conclusions: In post hoc analyses, first-line treatment with avelumab + axitinib was generally associated with efficacy benefits versus treatment with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across subgroups defined by different numbers of IMDC risk factors or target tumor sites., Competing Interests: Disclosure YT has participated in consulting or advisory roles for Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), and Ono Pharmaceutical; has received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Pfizer; and has received research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, and Takeda. RJM has participated in consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Aveo, Calithera Biosciences, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Pfizer, and EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA; has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb; and has received research funding from Aveo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA. TKC reports institutional and personal, paid and/or unpaid support for research, advisory boards, consultancy, and honoraria from Aravive, AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH and others), Eisai, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, MSD, NiKang, Novartis, Nuscan, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, and Up-To-Date, outside the submitted work; reports institutional patents filed on molecular alterations and immunotherapy response/toxicity, and circulating tumor DNA; reports equity Osel, Pionyr, Precede Bio, and Tempest; has served in committees for ACCRU, ASCO/ESMO, GU Steering Committee, KidneyCan, and NCCN; reports that medical writing and editorial assistance support may have been funded by communications companies in part; has mentored several non-US citizens on research projects with potential funding (in part) from non-US sources/foreign components; reports that the institution (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) may have received additional independent funding of drug companies or/and royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter; and is supported in part by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE (2P50CA101942-16) and Program 5P30CA006516-56, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, Pan Mass Challenge, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at DFCI. BIR has participated in consulting or advisory roles for 3D Medicines, Aravive, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Aveo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Shionogi, Surface Oncology, and Synthorx; reports leadership with MJH Life Sciences; has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA; reports stock and other ownership interests from PTC Therapeutics; and has received research funding from Aravive, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Immunomedics, Incyte, Exelixis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Seagen, Surface Oncology, Taris, and EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA. HM has received honoraria, consulting or advisory fees, and research funding from Pfizer. MO has participated in consulting or advisory roles for Bayer; has received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; and has received research funding from Astellas Pharma. LA has participated in consulting or advisory roles for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Janssen, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb and MSD; and has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. MA is an employee of Pfizer R&D Japan. YU is an employee of Pfizer R&D Japan and holds stock in Pfizer. JW is an employee and reports stock and other ownership interest with Pfizer. AdiP reports employment, stock, and other ownership interest with Pfizer, and has received honoraria from Pfizer. MS has participated in consulting or advisory roles for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, MSD, and Roche; has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Roche; and has received honoraria from Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, and MSD., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Previous analyses of KEYNOTE-426, an open-label, phase 3 randomized study, showed superior efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib to sunitinib in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We report results of the final protocol-prespecified analysis of KEYNOTE-426. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 wk per 6-wk cycle). The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v1.1 by a blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). The median study follow-up was 43 (range, 36-51) mo. Benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was maintained for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.60-0.88]), PFS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]), and ORR (60% vs 40%). The median DOR was 24 (range, 1.4+ to 43+) versus 15 (range, 2.3-43+) mo in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals emerged. These results support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for patients with previously untreated advanced ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Extended results of KEYNOTE-426 support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Competing Interests: KEB declares funding to their institution for clinical trials from Aveo, BMS, Exelixis, Arrowhead, Aravive, and Merck; receives research funding to the institution for preclinical research from Aravive, Arsenal, BMS-LCFA-IASLC, and Pionyr; and has received consulting fees from Aveo, BMS, Exelixis, Astrazeneca, Alpine Bioscience, Aravive, Merck, Sanofi, and Seagen, outside the scope of the submitted work. BIR declares institutional funding from Exelixis, AVEO, Genentech, BMS, Arcus, Merck, Dragonfly Therapeutics, HiberCell, Incyte, Stata Oncology, ADC Therapeutics, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Adela, AstraZeneca, Pionyr, Tempus, VasGene Therapeutics, Gilead, POINT Biopharma, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Surface Oncology, and Aravive; has received consulting fees from BMS, Genentech, AVEO and Exelixis, Pfizer, Synthorx, Merck, Corvus, Surface Oncology, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, Eisai, Nikang Therapeutics, EUSA, Athenex, Debiopharm, and HiberCell; declares previously owned stocks (within the past year) in PTC Therapeutics, a company with approved and pipeline products in muscular dystrophy, metabolic disorders, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, and leiomyosarcoma unrelated to the oncology indication discussed here.

Background: We report updated data for avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the third interim analysis of the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial., Patients and Methods: Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response per investigator assessment (RECIST version 1.1) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in the overall population and in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups; safety was also assessed., Results: Overall, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was not reached [42.2 months-not estimable (NE)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus 37.8 months (31.4-NE) with sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.643-0.969; one-sided P = 0.0116], and median PFS (95% CI) was 13.9 months (11.1-16.6 months) versus 8.5 months (8.2-9.7 months), respectively (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.568-0.785; one-sided P < 0.0001). In patients with IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, poor-, or intermediate plus poor-risk disease, respectively, HRs (95% CI) for OS with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.66 (0.356-1.223), 0.84 (0.649-1.084), 0.60 (0.399-0.912), and 0.79 (0.636-0.983), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.71 (0.490-1.016), 0.71 (0.578-0.866), 0.45 (0.304-0.678), and 0.66 (0.550-0.787), respectively. ORRs, complete response rates, and durations of response favored avelumab plus axitinib overall and across all risk groups. In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, 81.1% had a grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and incidences of TEAEs and immune-related AEs were highest <6 months after randomization., Conclusions: Avelumab plus axitinib continues to show improved efficacy versus sunitinib and a tolerable safety profile overall and across IMDC risk groups. The OS trend favors avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib, but data remain immature; follow-up is ongoing., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02684006; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02684006., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Advanced renal cell carcinoma is a biologically heterogeneous disease with multiple treatment options that largely involve immunotherapy and/or anti-angiogenic therapies. The choice of initial and subsequent therapy depends on both clinical and biological considerations. Here, we describe the application of recent data to clinical practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BIR has research funding to institution from: Pfizer, Hoffman-LaRoche, Incyte, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Immunomedics, BMS, Mirati Therapeutics, Merck, Surface Oncology, Aravive, Exelixis, Jannsen, Pionyr, AVEO. Consulting from: BMS, Pfizer, GNE/Roche, Aveo, Synthorx, Merck, Corvus, Surface Oncology, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, Shionogi, Eisai, Nikang Therapeutics, EUSA, Athenex, Allogene Therapeutics, Debiopharm; and stock ownership in PTC therapeutics. JB has/had an advisory role for Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Johnson and Johnson, Exelixis, and Calithera. In addition, he has patents for HIF2 biomarkers and mechanisms of resistance pending. MBA has/had an advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Aveo, Pfizer, Werewolf, Fathom, Pyxis Oncology, Elpis, X4Pharma, ValoHealth, Sanofi, ScholarRock, Surface, Takeda, Simcha, Roche, SAB Biom OncoRena and GSK and has served as a consultant to: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Exelixis, Agenus, Asher Bio, AstraZeneca, Calithera, and SeaGen. He reports research support to his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck and Pfizer. He holds stock/stock options in Pyxis Oncology, Werewolf and Elpis., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) provided efficacy benefits over sunitinib (SUN) in patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC at 42 months minimum follow-up in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, we report clinical efficacy of NIVO+IPI in sRCC after a minimum follow-up of 5 years., Methods: In CheckMate 214, patients with clear cell advanced RCC were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses), then NIVO 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks versus SUN 50 mg once daily (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Randomized patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histological classification per local pathology report. Overall survival (OS), as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1, were evaluated in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk sRCC patients and by baseline tumor PD-L1 expression level (≥1% vs <1%). Safety outcomes are reported using descriptive statistics., Results: In total, 139 patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC were identified (NIVO+IPI, n=74; SUN, n=65). At 5 years minimum follow-up, more patients remained on treatment with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (12% vs zero). Efficacy benefits with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were maintained with median OS of 48.6 vs 14.2 months (HR 0.46), median PFS of 26.5 vs 5.5 months (HR 0.50), and ORR 60.8% vs 23.1%. In addition, median duration of response was longer (not reached vs 25.1 months), and more patients had complete responses (23.0% vs 6.2%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively. Efficacy was better with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression, but the magnitude of OS, PFS, and ORR benefits with NIVO+IPI was greater for sRCC patients with tumor PD-L1 ≥1%. No new safety signals emerged in either arm with longer follow-up., Conclusions: Among patients with intermediate/poor-risk sRCC, NIVO+IPI maintained long-term survival benefits and demonstrated durable and deep responses over SUN at minimum follow-up of 5 years, supporting NIVO+IPI as a preferred first-line therapy in this population., Trial Registration Number: NCT02231749., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BIR reports consulting or advisory role from Pfizer, Merck, Synthorx, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), AVEO, Surface Oncology, 3D Medicines, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Aravive, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Shionogi, Eisai, and GlaxoSmithKline; leadership role from MJH Life Sciences; travel accommodations and expenses from Pfizer, BMS, and Merck; stock ownership from PTC Therapeutics; and research funding (institutional) from Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, BMS, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Incyte, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Taris, Seattle Genetics, Immunomedics, Surface Oncology, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Aravive, and Exelixis. SS reports consulting or advisory role from BMS, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, and CRISPR Therapeutics AG; and research funding (institutional) from BMS, AstraZeneca, and Exelixis. TKC reports research grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, AVEO, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen Janssen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, NiKang, Nuscan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, and UpToDate; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Aravive, AVEO, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen Janssen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, NiKang, Nuscan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, and UpToDate; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aravive, AVEO, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen Janssen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, NiKang, Nuscan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, and UpToDate; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Aravive, AVEO, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen Janssen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, NiKang, Nuscan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, and UpToDate; leadership role from NCCN, GU Steering Committee, ASCO, and ESMO; stock ownership in Pionyr, Tempest, Osel, and NuscanDx; institutional patents filed on molecular mutations and immunotherapy response, and ctDNA; medical writing and editorial assistance support funded by communications companies; mentored several non-US citizens on research projects with potential funding (in part) from non-US sources/Foreign Components; and independent funding (institutional) of drug companies or/and royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter. DFM reports consulting or advisory role from BMS, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Exelixis, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Peloton Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Jounce Therapeutics, Alkermes, Lilly, Eisai, Calithera Biosciences, and Iovance Biotherapeutics; other fees from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; research funding (institutional) from Prometheus, BMS, Merck, Genentech, Novartis, Alkermes, and Peloton Therapeutics; and uncompensated relationships with X4 Pharmaceuticals and AVEO. RJM reports consulting or advisory role from Novartis, Eisai, Exelixis, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, and Calithera Biosciences, travel accommodations and expenses from BMS; and research funding (institutional) from Pfizer, BMS, Eisai, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Exelixis, and Merck. S George reports consultant or advisory role from AVEO, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Merck, Pfizer, QED Therapeutics, Sanofi/Genzyme, and Seattle Genetics; and local PI fees (institutional) from Agensys, Aravive, AVEO, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Corvus, Eisai, Exelixis, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Surface Oncology. TP reports research grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai; consulting fees from BMS, Merck, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Roche, Exelixis, MSD, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai; and travel accommodations and expenses from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Ipsen. FD reports research funding (institutional) from MSD Oncology. SST reports consulting or advisory role from Merck, Intellisphere, Natera, BMS, and Exelixis; research funding (institutional) from Genentech, BMS, MSD, Calithera Biosciences, Pfizer, Jounce Therapeutics, Nektar, Exelixis, and Clinigen Group; and Patent pending (institutional). SKP reports consultant or advisory role from F. Hoffmann LaRoche; travel accommodations and expenses; and research funding from Eisai, Genentech, Roche, and Pfizer. S Gupta, C-WL, and RJ are employed by and have stock ownership in BMS. NMT reports consulting or advisory role from Novartis, Exelixis, BMS, Nektar, Pfizer, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, Oncorena, Surface Oncology, Neoleukin Therapeutics, Ipsen, MSD, Calithera Biosciences, and Lilly; travel accommodations and expenses from Pfizer, Nektar, BMS, Eisai, Surface Oncology, Lilly, Ipsen, and Calithera Biosciences; honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, Exelixis, Nektar, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, Lilly, Oncorena, Ipsen, Surface Oncology, Neoleukin Therapeutics, MSD, and Calithera Biosciences; and research funding from BMS, Exelixis, Pfizer, Nektar, Calithera Biosciences, Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Epizyme, and Eisai., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Hypoxia inducible factor (HIF) pathway alterations drive progression of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We aim to evaluate genes within the canonical and non-canonical HIF pathways as predictors of survival in metastatic ccRCC., Materials and Methods: Gene expression was determined from 324 archival pretreatment nephrectomy specimens from CALGB90206, a phase III trial of patients treated with interferon alpha (INF-α) vs. INF-α plus bevacizumab. TaqMan RT-qPCR was performed using RNA from tumors macrodissected based on review by genitourinary pathology., Results: A total of 35 HIF-related genes were assessed by Cox regression analysis. After adjusting for sex and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (MSKCC-RS), 11 genes predicted OS: HIF2A (HR 1.059, P = 0.012), EGLN3 (HR 1.089, P = 0.012), VEGFC (HR 0.904, P = 0.039), VEGFD (HR 1.085, P = 0.016), FLT4 (HR 1.093, P = 0.038), CCND1 (HR 1.077, P = 0.026), TGFA (HR 1.127, P = 0.003), EGFR (HR 1.151, P = 0.028), VHL (HR 0.764, P = 0.002), HSP90AA1 (HR 0.845, P = 0.002), and PTEN (HR 1.163, P = 0.050); 7 genes predicted PFS: HIF2A (HR 1.060, P = 0.011), CCND1 (HR 1.082, P = 0.016), TGFA (HR 1.096, P = 0.026), EP300 (HR 1.171, P = 0.031), VHL (HR 0.775, P = 0.007), HSP90AA1 (HR 0.871, P = 0.015), and TP53 (HR 1.119, P = 0.050). Most of these genes validated as significant predictors of survival in the external, TCGA dataset. In multivariate analysis of all externally validated genes, VEGFC (HR 0.906, P = 0.043), TGFA (HR 1.122, P = 0.003), CITED2 (HR 1.113, P = 0.035) and EP300 (HR 1.136, P = 0.049) predicted OS; and HIF2A (HR 1.049, P = 0.036) and EP300 (HR 1.199, P = 0.010) predicted PFS. EGLN3 (HR 1.156, P = 0.045) and BNIP3 (HR 1.254, P = 0.049) significantly interacted with treatment status and predicted PFS in patients treated with IFN-α and IFN-α+bevacizumab, respectively., Conclusions: We identified specific gene isoforms in both the canonical and non-canonical HIF pathways associated with metastatic RCC survival. EGLN3 and BNIP3 showed significant interaction with treatment arm and may be predictive of treatment response. We have identified genes for future prospective investigation as predictive biomarkers and novel drug targets., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)