Search

Background: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO + CABO) was approved for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) based on superiority versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial (18.1 months median survival follow-up per database lock date); efficacy benefit was maintained with an extended 32.9 months of median survival follow-up. We report updated efficacy and safety after 44.0 months of median survival follow-up in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and additional subgroup analyses, including outcomes by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk score., Patients and Methods: Patients with treatment-naïve aRCC received NIVO 240 mg every 2 weeks plus CABO 40 mg once daily or SUN 50 mg for 4 weeks (6-week cycles), until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity (maximum NIVO treatment, 2 years). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) per BICR, and safety and tolerability., Results: Overall, 323 patients were randomised to NIVO + CABO and 328 to SUN. Median PFS was improved with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [16.6 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.71]; median OS favoured NIVO + CABO versus SUN (49.5 versus 35.5 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.87). ORR (95% CI) was higher with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [56% (50% to 62%) versus 28% (23% to 33%)]; 13% versus 5% of patients achieved complete response, and median duration of response was 22.1 months versus 16.1 months, respectively. PFS and OS favoured NIVO + CABO over SUN across intermediate, poor and intermediate/poor IMDC risk subgroups; higher ORR and complete response rates were seen with NIVO + CABO versus SUN regardless of IMDC risk subgroup. Any-grade (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% (67%) versus 93% (55%) of patients treated with NIVO + CABO versus SUN., Conclusions: After extended follow-up, NIVO + CABO maintained survival and response benefits; safety remained consistent with previous follow-ups. These results continue to support NIVO + CABO as a first-line treatment for aRCC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The phase III CheckMate 9ER trial originally included a nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib triplet arm, which was discontinued early due to the evolving treatment landscape for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report an exploratory analysis of patients randomised to the triplet regimen before enrolment discontinuation., Methods: Patients with clear-cell aRCC received nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) Q3W for four cycles with once-daily cabozantinib (40 mg), then nivolumab (240 mg) Q2W plus once-daily cabozantinib (40 mg). CheckMate 9ER primary (progression-free survival [PFS] by blinded independent central review [BICR]) and key secondary (overall survival [OS], objective response rate [ORR] by BICR, and safety) endpoints were applied, along with investigator-assessed PFS and ORR., Results: Fifty patients were randomised to the triplet regimen. After a median follow-up of 39.1 months (range, 33.4-44.5), median PFS (95% CI) was 9.9 (5.7-16.8) months by BICR and 13.9 (7.3-24.7) months by investigator; median OS (95% CI) was 37.0 (31.8-not estimable) months. ORR (95% CI) was 44.0% (30.0-58.7; complete response, 8.0%) by BICR and 48.0% (33.7-62.6; all partial responses) by investigator. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.0%, most commonly alanine aminotransferase increased (20.0%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (16.0%), and hepatotoxicity (16.0%). Grade 3-4 hepatic immune-mediated AEs occurred in 40.0%. There were no grade 5 TRAEs., Conclusions: These results suggest that the nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib triplet combination has clinical activity in patients with previously untreated aRCC, although monitoring of overlapping toxicities will be important in future studies of this regimen., Clinicaltrials: gov registration: NCT03141177., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: In the primary analysis of CheckMate 9ER, nivolumab plus cabozantinib showed superior progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (median follow-up of 18·1 months). Here, we report extended follow-up of overall survival and updated efficacy and safety., Methods: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was done in 125 hospitals and cancer centres across 18 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed by the investigator, any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk category, and available tumour tissue for PD-L1 testing. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib (40 mg) orally once daily or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily (4 weeks per 6-week cycle). Randomisation, stratified by IMDC risk status, tumour PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, was done by permuted block within each stratum using a block size of four, via an interactive response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint (reported here as the preplanned final analysis according to the protocol). Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This ongoing study, closed to recruitment, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177., Findings: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 328 to the sunitinib group. With an extended follow-up (data cutoff of June 24, 2021; median 32·9 months [IQR 30·4-35·9]), median overall survival was 37·7 months (95% CI 35·5-not estimable) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 34·3 months (29·0-not estimable) in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·55-0·90], p=0·0043) and updated median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (12·8-19·8) versus 8·3 months (7·0-9·7; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·46-0·68], p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 208 (65%) of 320 patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus 172 (54%) of 320 with sunitinib. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (40 [13%] of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 39 [12%] of 320 in the sunitinib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (25 [8%] vs 26 [8%]), and diarrhoea (22 [7%] vs 15 [5%]). Grade 3-4 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 70 (22%) of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 31 (10%) of 320 in the cabozantinib group. One additional treatment-related death occurred with sunitinib (sudden death)., Interpretation: With extended follow-up and preplanned final overall survival analysis per protocol, nivolumab plus cabozantinib demonstrated improved efficacy versus sunitinib, further supporting the combination in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RJM reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; and institutional funding from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Pfizer. TP reports grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (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 support from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Ipsen. MB reports consulting fees from Roche/Genentech, BMS, MSD Oncology, Novartis, AstraZeneca; and speakers' bureau fees from Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, BMS, and AstraZeneca. BE reports an institutional research grant from BMS; consulting fees from Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, AVEO, Oncorena, and Eisai; honoraria from Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, Oncorena, and Eisai; and travel support from BMS, Ipsen, and MSD. MTB reports consulting fees from BMS, Asofarma, Eisai, MSD Oncology, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, Bayer, and Ferring; speakers' bureau fees from Asofarma, MSD Oncology, BMS, Bayer, Eisai, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, Ferring, Tecnofarma, Medicamenta, AstraZeneca, and Astellas Pharma; honoraria from BMS and Tecnofarma; payment for expert testimony from Asofarma; travel support from Asofarma, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, BMS Mexico, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Sanofi; and steering committee honoraria from BMS. AYS reports research grants from BMS, Eisai, 4D Pharma, and EMD Serono; consulting fees from Exelixis, BMS, Pfizer, and EMD Serono; and honoraria from Eisai and Oncology Information Group. CSu reports research grants from AB Science, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim España, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis; speakers' bureau fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, and Pfizer; and advisory board fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Hoffman-La Roche, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. AH reports advisory board fees from MSD and Janssen. CP reports consulting fees from Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, and MSD; speakers' bureau fees from BMS, EUSA Pharma, General Electric, Ipsen, and MSD; payment for expert testimony from EUSA Pharma and Pfizer; and travel support from Roche. CMH reports institutional research grant from BMS, and stock options from Telix Pharmaceuticals, Volpara Health Technologies, Alcidon, and Nanosonics. ERK reports a personal research grant from Medivation/Astellas; institutional research grant from BMS, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and Merck Serono; and stock options from Johnson & Johnson. HG reports advisory board fees from BMS, Ipsen, MSD, AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, Roche, and Merck Serono; speakers' bureau fees from Merck Serono; and travel support from AstraZeneca. YT reports institutional research grants from Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, and Astellas; and honoraria from BMS, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Astellas. JB reports institutional research grants from BMS, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche, Exelixis, Pfizer, and Seagen; consulting fees from BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, and Merck; and speakers' bureau fees from MSD Oncology, BMS, Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Roche. JZ and BS are employed by and have stock ownership in BMS. CSc is employed by and has stock ownership in Exelixis. TKC reports research grants, consulting fees, honoraria, and 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, UpToDate, and continuing medical education events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, and others), outside the submitted work; institutional patents filed on molecular mutations and immunotherapy response, and circulating tumour DNA; leadership fees from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, US NCI Genitourinary Steering Committee, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and European Society for Medical Oncology; stock ownership in Pionyr, Tempest, Osel, and NuscanDx; other financial or non-financial interests include medical writing and editorial assistance support that might in part have been funded by communications companies; potential funding (in part) from non-US sources or foreign institutions for mentoring of several non-US citizens on research projects; independent funding by drug companies or royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter (institutional); and support 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, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. ABA declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The role of adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma is rapidly evolving. To date, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved sunitinib and pembrolizumab in the adjuvant setting for renal cell carcinoma and nivolumab for urothelial carcinoma based on disease-free survival benefit. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration held a joint workshop with the National Cancer Institute and the Society of Urologic Oncology in 2017 to harmonize design elements, including eligibility and radiologic assessments across adjuvant trials in renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. Considerations from the discussion at these workshops led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to draft guidances to help inform subsequent adjuvant trial design for renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. Patient-centered decision-making is crucial when determining therapeutic choices in the adjuvant setting; utility functions can be used to help quantify each patient's goals, values, and risk/benefit trade-offs to ensure that the decision regarding adjuvant therapy is informed by their preferences and the evolving outcomes data.

Background: In the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER., Methods: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment., Findings: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0-26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20-3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17-0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84-1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28-0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58-5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14-0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01-0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08-0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56-0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50-0·80], nominal p=0·0001)., Interpretation: PROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DC reports consultant fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Exelixis, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; reports licensing fees from FACIT.org; research grants (institutional) from AbbVie, Astellas, Aveo, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; and is an officer of FACIT.org. RJM reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; and principal investigator fees (institutional) from BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Pfizer. CS reports advisory board fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis; speakers' bureau fees from Astellas Pharma, BMS, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, and Pfizer; and research grants (institutional) from AB Science, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim España, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. SIB is an employee of BMS, and has stock ownership in BMS and GlaxoSmithKline. FE, MH, BS, and JZ are employees of and have stock ownership in BMS. JFW is an employee and has stock ownership in Exelixis. CI is an employee of IQVIA. TKC reports advisory board fees from Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, BMS, Calithera, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Infinity, Merck, Pfizer, and Surface Oncology; speaker's fees from Advent Health, ASCO-SITC, ASiM, CancerNet, Ipsen, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), MJH Life Sciences, PeerView, Physicians Education Resources, Research To Practice, Springer, and WebMD; consulting fees from The Analysis Group; stock ownership in Pionyr and Tempest; a personal grant from Orien; royalties from Up-To-Date online textbook; funding (institutional) from Alliance Cooperative Group, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Lilly, Merck, Peloton, Pfizer, Takeda, and Tracon; research grants (institutional) from BMS, Exelixis, and Roche; principal investigator fees (institutional) from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, and Surface Oncology; a non-financial leadership role interest with Kidney Cancer Research Summit of KidneyCAN (meeting co-chair in 2019 and 2020); being a grant reviewer for the American Association for Cancer Research; being a track leader, session chair, speaker, and discussant for the American Society of Clinical Oncology; being a speaker and discussant for the European Society for Medical Oncology; access to the genomic database from Foundation Medicine; access to the genomic database (institutional) from Guardant; access to the genomic database (institutional) from Invitae; personal non-financial interests for medical writing and editorial assistance from Clinical Thinking, Envision Pharma Group, Fishawack Group of Companies, Health Interactions, Parexel, and Oxford PharmaGenesis; and personal non-financial interests for reviews of papers for various journals. ABA declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been successfully developed in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), further advancing treatment. While safety profiles are generally manageable with combination regimens, overlapping adverse events (AEs) and immune-related AEs can make treatment more complex. The CheckMate 9ER study evaluated the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in combination with the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 antibody nivolumab in patients with previously untreated advanced RCC. Cabozantinib + nivolumab demonstrated superiority over sunitinib for progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate. These outcomes supported the approval of cabozantinib + nivolumab as a first-line therapy for advanced RCC. The safety profile was manageable with prophylaxis, supportive care, dose holds and reductions for cabozantinib, and dose holds and immunosuppressive therapy for nivolumab. This review discusses the safety results of CheckMate 9ER and provides guidance on managing some of the more clinically relevant AEs with a focus on overlapping AEs, including diarrhea, elevated amylase/lipase, hepatotoxicity, dermatologic reactions, fatigue, endocrine disorders, and nephrotoxicity. We discuss AE management strategies (prophylaxis, supportive care, dose modification, and immunosuppressive therapy), and provide recommendations for identifying the causative agent of overlapping AEs and for consulting specialists about organ-specific immune-related AEs. Optimizing AE management can maintain tolerability and should be a priority with cabozantinib + nivolumab treatment., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known., Methods: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point., Results: Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: To harmonize the eligibility criteria and radiologic disease assessment definitions in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC)., Method: On November 28, 2017, US-based experts in RCC clinical trials, including medical oncologists, urologic oncologists, regulators, biostatisticians, radiologists, and patient advocates, convened at a public workshop to discuss eligibility for trial entry and radiologic criteria for assessing disease recurrence in adjuvant trials in RCC. Multiple virtual meetings were conducted to address the issues identified at the workshop., Results: The key workshop conclusions for adjuvant RCC therapy clinical trials were as follows. First, patients with non-clear cell RCC could be routinely included, preferably in an independent cohort. Second, patients with T3-4, N+M0, and microscopic R1 RCC tumors may gain the greatest advantages from adjuvant therapy. Third, trials of agents not excreted by the kidney should not exclude patients with severe renal insufficiency. Fourth, therapy can begin 4 to 16 weeks after the surgical procedure. Fifth, patients undergoing radical or partial nephrectomy should be equally eligible. Sixth, patients with microscopically positive soft tissue or vascular margins without gross residual or radiologic disease may be included in trials. Seventh, all suspicious regional lymph nodes should be fully resected. Eighth, computed tomography should be performed within 4 weeks before trial enrollment; for patients with renal insufficiency who cannot undergo computed tomography with contrast, noncontrast chest computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen and pelvis with gadolinium should be performed. Ninth, when feasible, biopsy should be undertaken to identify any malignant disease. Tenth, when biopsy is not feasible, a uniform approach should be used to evaluate indeterminate radiologic findings to identify what constitutes no evidence of disease at trial entry and what constitutes radiologic evidence of disease. Eleventh, a uniform approach for establishing the date of recurrence should be included in any trial design. Twelfth, patient perspectives on the use of placebo, conditions for unblinding, and research biopsies should be considered carefully during the conduct of an adjuvant trial., Conclusions and Relevance: The discussions suggested that a uniform approach to eligibility criteria and radiologic disease assessment will lead to more consistently interpretable trial results in the adjuvant RCC therapy setting.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to evaluate the utility of ferumoxytol-enhanced MR lymphography (MRL) in detection of metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) in patients with prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. This phase 2 single-institution study enrolled patients with confirmed prostate (arm 1), bladder (arm 2), and kidney (arm 3) cancer and evidence of suspected LN involvement. Participants underwent ferumoxytol-enhanced MRL 24 and 48 hours after IV injection of 7.5 mg Fe/kg of ferumoxytol. A retrospective quantitative analysis was performed to determine the optimal timing for ferumoxytol-enhanced MRL using percentage change in normalized signal intensity (SI) from baseline to 24 and 48 hours after injection, which were estimated using the linear mixed-effects model in which time (24 vs 48 hours), diseases status, and time and disease status interaction were the fixed-effects independent variables. Differences in normalized SI values between subgroups of lesions were estimated by forming fixed-effects contrasts and tested by the Wald test. RESULTS. Thirty-nine patients ( n = 30, arm 1; n = 6, arm 2; n = 3, arm 3) (median age, 65 years) with 145 LNs (metastatic, n = 100; benign, n = 45) were included. LN-based sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ferumoxytol-enhanced MRL was 98.0%, 64.4%, 86.0%, and 93.5%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of ferumoxytol-enhanced MRL did not vary by LN size. Metastatic LNs showed a significantly higher percentage decrease of normalized SI on MRL at 24 hours after ferumoxytol injection than at 48 hours after ferumoxytol injection ( p = 0.023), whereas the normalized SI values for nonmetastatic LNs were similar at both imaging time points ( p = 0.260). CONCLUSION. Ferumoxytol-enhanced MRL shows high sensitivity in the detection of metastatic LNs in genitourinary cancers independent of LN size. The SI difference between benign and malignant LNs on ferumoxytol-enhanced MRL appears similar 24 and 48 hours after ferumoxytol injection, suggesting that imaging can be performed safely within 1 or 2 days of injection. Although ferumoxytol-enhanced MRL can be useful in settings without an available targeted PET agent, issues of iron overload and repeatability of ferumoxytol-enhanced MRL remain concerns for this method.

Renal medullary carcinoma (RMC) is one of the most aggressive renal cell carcinomas. It predominantly afflicts young adults and adolescents with sickle cell trait and other sickle hemoglobinopathies, and is refractory to targeted and antiangiogenic therapies used in patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Platinum-based cytotoxic chemotherapy is the mainstay for RMC treatment. On the basis of recent advances in the diagnosis, management, and clinical trial development for RMC, a panel of experts met in October 2017 and developed updated consensus recommendations to inform clinicians, researchers, and patients. Because RMC often aggressively recurs while patients are still recovering from nephrectomy, upfront chemotherapy should be considered for most patients, including those with localized disease. After safety and dosing information has been established in adults, phase II and III trials enrolling patients with RMC should allow patients aged 12 years and older to be accrued. Patients with the very rare unclassified renal cell carcinoma with medullary phenotype variant should be included in RMC trials. Medical providers should be aware that RMC can afflict subjects of all races, and not only those of African descent, and that the presence of sickle cell trait, or of other sickle hemoglobinopathies, can affect drug responses and toxicity., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To review the management of metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) including recent advances in targeted and immune therapies as an update to the 2014 joint international consultation on UTUC, co-sponsored by the Société Internationale d'Urologie and International Consultation on Urological Diseases., Methods: A PubMed database search was performed between January 2013 and May 2016 related to the treatment of metastatic UTUC, and 54 studies were selected for inclusion., Results: The management of patients with metastatic UTUC is primarily an extrapolation from evidence guiding the management of metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. The first-line therapy for metastatic UTUC is platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Standard second-line therapies are limited and ineffective. Patients with UTUC who progress following platinum-based chemotherapy are encouraged to participate in clinical trials. Recent advances in genomic profiling present exciting opportunities to guide the use of targeted therapy. Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has demonstrated extremely promising results. Retrospective studies provide support for post-chemotherapy surgery in appropriately selected patients., Conclusions: The management of metastatic UTUC requires a multi-disciplinary approach. New insights from genomic profiling using targeted therapies, novel immunotherapies, and surgery represent promising avenues for further therapeutic exploration.

A prognostic model that predicts overall survival (OS) for metastatic urothelial cancer (MetUC) patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy was developed, validated, and compared with a commonly used Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk-score model. Data from 7 protocols that enrolled 308 patients with MetUC were pooled. An external multi-institutional dataset was used to validate the model. The primary measurement of predictive discrimination was Harrell's c-index, computed with 95% confidence interval (CI). The final model included four pretreatment variables to predict OS: visceral metastases, albumin, performance status, and hemoglobin. The Harrell's c-index was 0.67 for the four-variable model and 0.64 for the MSKCC risk-score model, with a prediction improvement for OS (the U statistic and its standard deviation were used to calculate the two-sided P = .002). In the validation cohort, the c-indices for the four-variable and the MSKCC risk-score models were 0.63 (95% CI = 0.56 to 0.69) and 0.58 (95% CI = 0.52 to 0.65), respectively, with superiority of the four-variable model compared with the MSKCC risk-score model for OS (the U statistic and its standard deviation were used to calculate the two-sided P = .02).