Search

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract Background Nivolumab is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) refractory to prior antiangiogenic therapy. The clinical activity of nivolumab in patients with non-clear cell RCC subtypes remains unknown as these patients were excluded from the original nivolumab trials. Methods Patients from 6 centers in the United States who received at least one dose of nivolumab for non-clear cell mRCC between 12/2015 and 06/2017 were identified. A retrospective analysis including patient characteristics, objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was undertaken. Results Forty-one patients were identified. Median age was 58 years (33–82), 71% were male, and majority had ECOG PS 0 (40%) or 1 (47%). Histology included 16 papillary, 14 unclassified, 5 chromophobe, 4 collecting duct, 1 Xp11 translocation and 1 MTSCC (mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma). Among 35 patients who were evaluable for best response, 7 (20%) had PR and 10 (29%) had SD. Responses were observed in unclassified, papillary and collecting duct subtypes. In the entire cohort, median follow-up was 8.5 months and median treatment duration was 3.0 months. Median PFS was 3.5 months and median OS was not reached. Among responders, median time to best response was 5.1 months, and median duration of response was not reached as only 2 out of 7 responders had disease progression during follow-up. TRAEs of any grade were noted in 37% and most commonly included fatigue (12%), fever (10%) and rash (10%). Nivolumab treatments were postponed in 34% and discontinued in 15% of patients due to intolerance. No treatment-related deaths were observed. Conclusions Nivolumab monotherapy demonstrated objective responses and was well tolerated in a heterogeneous population of patients with non-clear cell mRCC. In the absence of other data in this treatment setting, this study lends support to the use of nivolumab for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

The broad activity of agents blocking the programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand (the PD-(L)1 axis) revolutionized oncology, offering long-term benefit to patients and even curative responses for tumors that were once associated with dismal prognosis. However, only a minority of patients experience durable clinical benefit with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in most disease settings. Spurred by preclinical and correlative studies to understand mechanisms of non-response to the PD-(L)1 antagonists and by combination studies in animal tumor models, many drug development programs were designed to combine anti-PD-(L)1 with a variety of approved and investigational chemotherapies, tumor-targeted therapies, antiangiogenic therapies, and other immunotherapies. Several immunotherapy combinations improved survival outcomes in a variety of indications including melanoma, lung, kidney, and liver cancer, among others. This immunotherapy renaissance, however, has led to many combinations being advanced to late-stage development without definitive predictive biomarkers, limited phase I and phase II data, or clinical trial designs that are not optimized for demonstrating the unique attributes of immune-related antitumor activity—for example, landmark progression-free survival and overall survival. The decision to activate a study at an individual site is investigator-driven, and generalized frameworks to evaluate the potential for phase III trials in immuno-oncology to yield positive data, particularly to increase the number of curative responses or otherwise advance the field have thus far been lacking. To assist in evaluating the potential value to patients and the immunotherapy field of phase III trials, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) has developed a checklist for investigators, described in this manuscript. Although the checklist focuses on anti-PD-(L)1-based combinations, it may be applied to any regimen in which immune modulation is an important component of the antitumor effect.

Purpose To report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).Methods Patients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory).Results Overall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN.Conclusion After long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety.Trial registration details ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.

Background The extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up.Methods Patients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory.Results Among ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55–0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62–0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61–0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77–1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46–0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%–12.8% vs 1.4%–5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports.Conclusions NIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months’ minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response.Trial registration number NCT02231749.

AbstractCOVID-19 infections are characterized by inflammation of the lungs and other organs that ranges from mild and asymptomatic to fulminant and fatal. Patients who are immunocompromised and those with cardiopulmonary comorbidities appear to be particularly afflicted by this illness. During pandemic conditions, many aspects of cancer care have been impacted. One important clinical question is how to manage patients who need anticancer therapy, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) during these conditions. Herein, we consider diagnostic and therapeutic implications of using ICI during this unprecedented period of COVID-19 infections. In particular, we consider the impact of ICI on COVID-19 severity, decisions surrounding continuing or interrupting therapy, diagnostic measures in patients with symptoms or manifestations potentially consistent with either COVID-19 or ICI toxicity, and resumption of therapy in infected patients. While more robust data are needed to guide clinicians on management of patients with cancer who may be affected by COVID-19, we hope this commentary provides useful insights for the clinical community.

Abstract Background Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs has shown encouraging preliminary antitumor activity across various tumor types including advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors or ipilimumab. Long-term outcomes from this study for the combination of nivolumab plus sunitinib or pazopanib in aRCC are presented. Methods Patients with aRCC received nivolumab plus either sunitinib (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on/2 weeks off; N + S) or pazopanib (800 mg/day; N + P) until progression/unacceptable toxicity. The nivolumab starting dose was 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, with planned escalation to 5 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; antitumor activity was a secondary endpoint. Results Arm N + S enrolled 33 patients, 19 of whom were treatment-naïve; this arm advanced to the expansion phase. Median follow-up was 50.0 months. Patients experienced high frequencies of adverse events (AEs) including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (82%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (39%). Investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) was 55% (18/33) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.7 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Arm N + P enrolled 20 patients, all had ≥1 prior systemic therapy; this arm was closed due to dose-limiting toxicities and did not proceed to expansion. Median follow-up was 27.1 months. Patients treated with N + P experienced high frequencies of AEs including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (70%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (25%). Investigator-assessed ORR was 45% (9/20) and median PFS was 7.2 months. Median OS was 27.9 months. Conclusions The addition of standard doses of sunitinib or pazopanib to nivolumab resulted in a high incidence of high-grade toxicities limiting future development of either combination regimen. While there was no adverse impact on response and the OS outcome was notable, the findings suggest that the success of combination regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs may be dependent on careful selection of the antiangiogenic component and dose. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01472081. Registered 16 November 2011.

In sporadic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC), the von Hippel Lindau (VHL) gene is inactivated by mutation or methylation in the majority of primary (P) tumors. Due to differing effects of wild-type (WT) and mutant (MT) VHL gene on downstream signaling pathways regulating angiogenesis, VHL gene status could impact clinical outcome. In CCRCC, comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis studies have reported genetic differences between paired P and metastatic (M) tumors. We thus sequenced the VHL gene in paired tumor specimens from 10 patients to determine a possible clonal relationship between the P tumor and M lesion(s) in patients with CCRCC. Using paraffin embedded specimens, genomic DNA from microdissected samples (>80% tumor) of paired P tumor and M lesions from all 10 patients, as well as in normal tissue from 6 of these cases, was analyzed. The DNA was used for PCR-based amplification of each of the 3 exons of the VHL gene. Sequences derived from amplified samples were compared to the wild-type VHL gene sequence (GeneBank Accession No. AF010238). Methylation status of the VHL gene was determined using VHL methylation-specific PCR primers after DNA bisulfite modification. In 4/10 (40%) patients the VHL gene status differed between the P tumor and the M lesion. As expected, when the VHL gene was mutated in both the P tumor and M lesion, the mutation was identical. Further, while the VHL genotype differed between the primary tumor in different kidneys or multiple metastatic lesions in the same patient, the VHL germline genotype in the normal adjacent tissue was always wild-type irrespective of the VHL gene status in the P tumor. These results demonstrate for the first time that the VHL gene status can be different between paired primary and metastatic tissue in patients with CCRCC.

Purpose Standard frontline treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma currently includes sunitinib. A barrier to long-term treatment with sunitinib includes the development of significant adverse effects, including diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), and fatigue. This trial assessed the effect of an alternate 2 weeks on, 1 week off (2/1) schedule of sunitinib on toxicity and efficacy in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods Patients started with oral administration of 50 mg sunitinib on a 2/1 schedule and underwent schedule and dose alterations if toxicity developed. The primary end point was < 15% grade ≥ 3 fatigue, diarrhea, or HFS. With 60 patients, the upper bound of the CI would fall below the published 4/2 schedule grade ≥ 3 toxicity rate of 25% to 30%. Results Fifty-nine patients were treated between August 2014 and March 2016. Seventy-seven percent were intermediate or poor risk per Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria. With a median follow-up of 17 months, 25% of patients experienced grade 3 fatigue, HFS, or diarrhea; 37% required a dose reduction, and 10% discontinued because of toxicity. The overall response rate was 57%, median progression-free survival was 13.7 months, and median overall survival was not reached. At 12 weeks, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scores dropped between 0% and 10% from baseline, with less reduction in patients who continued treatment longer. Conclusion The primary end point of decreased grade 3 toxicity was not met; however, treatment with a 2/1 sunitinib schedule is associated with a lack of grade 4 toxicity, a low patient discontinuation rate, and high efficacy.

Purpose The von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor is inactivated in the majority of clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCCs), leading to inappropriate stabilization of hypoxia-inducible factor-2α (HIF-2α). PT2385 is a first-in-class HIF-2α antagonist. Objectives of this first-in-human study were to characterize the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy, and to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of PT2385. Patients and Methods Eligible patients had locally advanced or metastatic ccRCC that had progressed during one or more prior regimens that included a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor. PT2385 was administered orally at twice-per-day doses of 100 to 1,800 mg, according to a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, followed by an expansion phase at the RP2D. Results The dose-escalation and expansion phases enrolled 26 and 25 patients, respectively. Patients were heavily pretreated, with a median of four (range, one to seven) prior therapies. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed at any dose. On the basis of safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic profiling, the RP2D was defined as 800 mg twice per day. PT2385 was well tolerated, with anemia (grade 1 to 2, 35%; grade 3, 10%), peripheral edema (grade 1 to 2, 37%; grade 3, 2%), and fatigue (grade 1 to 2, 37%; no grade 3 or 4) being the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. No patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Complete response, partial response, and stable disease as best response were achieved by 2%, 12%, and 52% of patients, respectively. At data cutoff, eight patients remained in the study, with 13 patients in the study for ≥ 1 year. Conclusion PT2385 has a favorable safety profile and is active in patients with heavily pretreated ccRCC, validating direct HIF-2α antagonism for the treatment of patients with ccRCC.

Purpose This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy. Patients and Methods A total of 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade) or ≥ pT3, including N1, clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib or placebo for 1 year; 403 patients received a starting dose of 800 mg or placebo. To address toxicity attrition, the 800-mg starting dose was lowered to 600 mg, and the primary end point analysis was changed to disease-free survival (DFS) for pazopanib 600 mg versus placebo (n = 1,135). Primary analysis was performed after 350 DFS events in the intent-to-treat (ITT) pazopanib 600 mg group (ITT 600mg ), and DFS follow-up analysis was performed 12 months later. Secondary end point analyses included DFS with ITT pazopanib 800 mg (ITT 800mg ) and safety. Results The primary analysis results of DFS ITT 600mg favored pazopanib but did not show a significant improvement over placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = .165). The secondary analysis of DFS in ITT 800mg (n = 403) yielded an HR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.94). Follow-up analysis in ITT 600mg yielded an HR of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14). Increased ALT and AST were common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the pazopanib 600 mg (ALT, 16%; AST, 5%) and 800 mg (ALT, 18%; AST, 7%) groups. Conclusion The results of the primary DFS analysis of pazopanib 600 mg showed no benefit over placebo in the adjuvant setting.

Purpose Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown enhanced antitumor activity compared with monotherapy in tumor types such as melanoma. The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in combination, and nivolumab plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Safety and efficacy results from the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arms of the study are presented. Patients and Methods Patients with mRCC received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3), or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N3I3) every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or toxicity. End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS). Results All patients in the N3I3 arm (n = 6) were censored at the time of analysis as a result of dose-limiting toxicity or other reasons. Forty-seven patients were treated in both the N3I1 and the N1I3 arm, and baseline patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38.3% and 61.7% of the patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ongoing responses in 42.1% and 36.8% of patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. The 2-year OS was 67.3% and 69.6% in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. Conclusion Nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy demonstrated manageable safety, notable antitumor activity, and durable responses with promising OS in patients with mRCC.

Purpose: Obesity is an established risk factor for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, some reports suggest that RCC developing in obese patients may be more indolent. We investigated the clinical and biologic effect of body mass index (BMI) on treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic RCC., Methods: The impact of BMI (high BMI: ≥ 25 kg/m 2 v low BMI: < 25 kg/m 2 ) on overall survival (OS) and treatment outcome with targeted therapy was investigated in 1,975 patients from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) and in an external validation cohort of 4,657 patients. Gene expression profiling focusing on fatty acid metabolism pathway, in The Cancer Genome Atlas data set, and immunohistochemistry staining for fatty acid synthase (FASN) were also investigated. Cox regression was undertaken to estimate the association of BMI with OS, adjusted for the IMDC prognostic factors., Results: In the IMDC cohort, median OS was 25.6 months (95% CI, 23.2 to 28.6) in patients with high BMI versus 17.1 months (95% CI, 15.5 to 18.5) in patients with low BMI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95). In the validation cohort, high BMI was associated with improved OS (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.93; medians: 23.4 months [95% CI, 21.9 to 25.3 months] v 14.5 months [95% CI, 13.8 to 15.9 months], respectively). In The Cancer Genome Atlas data set (n = 61), FASN gene expression inversely correlated with BMI (P = .034), and OS was longer in the low FASN expression group (medians: 36.8 v 15.0 months; P = .002). FASN immunohistochemistry positivity was more frequently detected in IMDC poor (48%) and intermediate (34%) risk groups than in the favorable risk group (17%; P-trend = .015)., Conclusion: High BMI is a prognostic factor for improved survival and progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC treated with targeted therapy. Underlying biology suggests a role for the FASN pathway.

Purpose: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare dual inhibition of PI3K/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) by apitolisib (GDC-0980) against single inhibition of mTORC1 by everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with clear-cell mRCC who progressed on or after vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy were randomly assigned to apitolisib 40 mg once per day or to everolimus 10 mg once per day. End points included progression-free survival, safety, overall survival, and objective response rate. Biomarker assessments were conducted., Results: Eighty-five patients were randomly assigned. After 67 events, stratified analysis revealed that median progression-free survival was significantly shorter for apitolisib than for everolimus (3.7 v 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.23 to 3.63; P < .01]); apitolisib was not favored in any stratification subgroup. Median overall survival was not significantly different but trended in favor of everolimus (16.5 v 22.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 0.97 to 3.24; P = .06]). The objective response rate was 7.1% for apitolisib and 11.6% for everolimus. Patients administered apitolisib with a greater incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more likely to discontinue treatment (31% v 12% for everolimus). No drug-related deaths were observed. Apitolisib in comparison with everolimus was associated with substantially more high-grade hyperglycemia (40% v 9%) and rash (24% v 2%). Apitolisib pharmacokinetics suggested a relationship between exposure, and rash and hyperglycemia. Retrospective biomarker analyses revealed a relationship between VHL mutation status and outcome with everolimus but not with apitolisib. High hypoxia-inducible factor 1α protein expression was associated with better outcome in both arms., Conclusion: This study demonstrated that dual PI3K/mTOR inhibition by apitolisib was less effective than was everolimus in mRCC, likely because full blockade of PI3K/mTOR signaling resulted in multiple on-target adverse events. VHL mutation and hypoxia-inducible factor 1α expression may be predictive of an mTOR inhibitor benefit, although prospective validation is required., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Nivolumab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 programmed death-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody that restores T-cell immune activity. This phase II trial assessed the antitumor activity, dose-response relationship, and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with clear-cell mRCC previously treated with agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway were randomly assigned (blinded ratio of 1:1:1) to nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the dose-response relationship as measured by progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: A total of 168 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab 0.3- (n = 60), 2- (n = 54), and 10-mg/kg (n = 54) cohorts. One hundred eighteen patients (70%) had received more than one prior systemic regimen. Median PFS was 2.7, 4.0, and 4.2 months, respectively (P = .9). Respective ORRs were 20%, 22%, and 20%. Median OS was 18.2 months (80% CI, 16.2 to 24.0 months), 25.5 months (80% CI, 19.8 to 28.8 months), and 24.7 months (80% CI, 15.3 to 26.0 months), respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse event (AE) was fatigue (24%, 22%, and 35%, respectively). Nineteen patients (11%) experienced grade 3 to 4 treatment-related AEs., Conclusion: Nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile across the three doses studied in mRCC. No dose-response relationship was detected as measured by PFS. These efficacy and safety results in mRCC support study in the phase III setting., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To prospectively determine the efficacy of combination therapy with temsirolimus plus bevacizumab versus interferon alfa (IFN) plus bevacizumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Patients and Methods: In a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III study, patients with previously untreated predominantly clear-cell mRCC were randomly assigned, stratified by prior nephrectomy and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic group, to receive the combination of either temsirolimus (25 mg intravenously, weekly) or IFN (9 MIU subcutaneously thrice weekly) with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously, every 2 weeks). The primary end point was independently assessed progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Median PFS in patients treated with temsirolimus/bevacizumab (n = 400) versus IFN/bevacizumab (n = 391) was 9.1 and 9.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.3; P = .8). There were no significant differences in overall survival (25.8 ν 25.5 months; HR, 1.0; P = .6) or objective response rate (27.0% ν 27.4%) with temsirolimus/bevacizumab versus IFN/bevacizumab, respectively. Patients receiving temsirolimus/bevacizumab reported significantly higher overall mean scores in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) -15 and FKSI-Disease Related Symptoms subscale compared with IFN/bevacizumab (indicating improvement); however, no differences in global health outcome measures were observed. Treatment-emergent all-causality grade ≥ 3 adverse events more common (P < .001) with temsirolimus/bevacizumab were mucosal inflammation, stomatitis, hypophosphatemia, hyperglycemia, and hypercholesterolemia, whereas neutropenia was more common with IFN/bevacizumab. Incidence of pneumonitis with temsirolimus/bevacizumab was 4.8%, mostly grade 1 or 2., Conclusion: Temsirolimus/bevacizumab combination therapy was not superior to IFN/bevacizumab for first-line treatment in clear-cell mRCC.