Search

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib improved efficacy over sunitinib in treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma in the KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study. However, a relatively high incidence of grade 3/4 aminotransferase elevations was observed.To further characterize treatment-emergent aminotransferase elevations in patients treated with pembrolizumab-axitinib.Patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-426 were included in this study.Three Standardized MedDRA Queries for potential hepatic disorders were used to identify patients for the hepatic event analysis subpopulation (HEAS). Alanine aminotransferase events were characterized for time to onset, time to recovery, corticosteroid use, and rechallenge with study treatment(s).The HEAS comprised 189/429 (44%) pembrolizumab-axitinib patients and 128/425 (30%) sunitinib patients. Grade 3/4 hepatic adverse events were more common in the combination arm: 22% (94/429) versus 7% (29/425); 3% (13/429) discontinued the combination due to hepatic adverse events. In the pembrolizumab-axitinib arm, 125/426 patients (29%) had alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≥3× upper limit of normal (ULN), with median time to onset of 84 d (range, 7-840 d). Among patients with ALT ≥3× ULN, 120/125 (96%) recovered to3× ULN following study treatment interruption/discontinuation, with a median time to recovery of 15 d (3-176 d): 68/120 (57%) received corticosteroids. One hundred patients were rechallenged with one or both study treatment(s): 45/100 (45%) had ALT ≥3× ULN recurrence, and all 45 recovered to ALT3× ULN following study treatment interruption/discontinuation. No fatal hepatic events occurred.A higher incidence of grade 3/4 aminotransferase elevations occurs with pembrolizumab-axitinib. These events should be carefully evaluated and managed with prompt study treatment interruption or discontinuation, with or without corticosteroid treatment. The decision to rechallenge with one or both drugs should be based on severity of event and thorough causality assessment.Renal cell carcinoma patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib are at a higher risk of liver enzyme elevations, which could be reversed with appropriate management.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have reported unprecedented results in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, as monotherapy or in combination with other anticancer agents. However, little information is available regarding the association between different clinicopathological features and survival in this setting.We performed a meta-analysis aimed at exploring the predictive value of routinely collected clinicopathological data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICIs plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC.We retrieved all the relevant RCTs through PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE; additionally, proceedings of the main international oncological meetings were also searched for relevant abstracts. Eligible studies included RCTs assessing first-line ICI-TKI versus sunitinib in treatment-naïve mRCC patients; the primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), measured as hazard ratio (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).Overall, three phase III RCTs involving 1769 patients with advanced or metastatic RCC were included. Compared with sunitinib, the ICI-TKI combination significantly decreased the risk of death in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) 0 (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.76) and ECOG-PS 1 (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.77). Similarly, the combination was associated with prolonged OS in patients who were65 yr old (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.49-0.67), in mRCC patients ≥65 yr old (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90), as well as in male (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78) and female (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.83) patients.According to our results, the magnitude of benefit of the ICI-TKI combination over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naïve mRCC patients was consistent across the clinicopathological subgroups. Despite the limitations affecting the analysis, we believe that the results of the current meta-analysis could assist clinicians and researchers in the design and interpretation of future clinical trials on combination therapies in this setting.First-line combinations of an immune checkpoint inhibitor plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor improved survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. This survival benefit was consistent across all subgroups of mRCC patients irrespective of clinicopathological features such as patient performance status, age65 and ≥65 yr, and male and female gender.

Background : Axitinib monotherapy obtained approval in pre-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients and recently in combination with pembrolizumab or avelumab in the first-line setting. However, patient profiles that may obtain increased benefit from this drug and its combinations still need to be identified. Patients and Methods : Retrospective multicentre analysis describing clinical characteristics associated with axitinib long-responder (LR) population by comparing two extreme-response sub-groups (progression-free survival [PFS] ≥9 months versus disease progression/refractory patients [RP]). A multivariate logistic-regression model was used to analyse clinical factors. Efficacy and safety were also analysed. Results : In total, 157 patients who received axitinib in second or subsequent line were evaluated (91 LR and 66 RP). Older age at start of axitinib and haemoglobin levels > LLN were independent predictive factors for LR in multivariate analyses. In LR patients, median (m) PFS was 18.1 months, median overall survival (OS) was 36.0 months and objective response rate (ORR) was 45.5%. In 59 LR patients receiving axitinib in second-line, mPFS was 18.7 months, mOS was 44.8 months and ORR was 43.9%. mOS was significantly longer in second line compared to subsequent lines (44.8 versus 26.5 months; P=0.009). In LR versus RP, mPFS with sunitinib in first-line was correlated with mPFS with axitinib in second-line (27.2 versus 10.9 months P Conclusions : This study confirms the long-term benefits of axitinib in a selected population, helping clinicians to select the best sequential approach and patients who could obtain a greater benefit from axitinib. Microabstract Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who may benefit most from axitinib still need to be identified. AXILONG study confirms long-term benefits in a selected population in which age at axitinib initiation and haemoglobin baseline levels were significantly associated although further validation may be required. First-line sunitinib outcomes were also correlated with prolonged response. These results might be helpful in real-life management of mRCC patients.

Background Cabozantinib, a potent multi-tyrosine kinases inhibitor (TKI), has demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefit over everolimus in patients previously treated with VEGFR TKI for metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC). The efficacy of systemic treatments after cabozantinib failure has not been investigated. Methods We conducted a retrospective study on patients receiving systemic treatment after cabozantinib failure in heavily pre-treated patient with mRCC. We assessed Time to Treatment Failure (TTF), OS and objective response rate (ORR). Results Among 150 patients treated with cabozantinib in our institution, 56 (37.3%) received subsequent systemic therapy and were eligible for the analysis. IMDC prognostic group was good, intermediate and poor in 11 (19.6%), 24 (42.9%) and 11 (19.6%) patients, respectively. Cabozantinib was administered mainly as a second (41.1%), or third (33.9%) line treatment. axitinib or immune-checkpoint inhibitors were the subsequent treatment in 18 (34.8%) patients for each everolimus (n:16, 28.6%), other angiogenesis inhibitors (n:4, 7.1%) TTF and OS from subsequent systemic therapy after cabozantinib failure were 2.8 months (95%CI 1.9-3.7) and 7.7 months (95%CI 4.4-10.8), respectively. ORR was 8.7% and two patients with axitinib and two patients treated with Immune checkpoint inhibitors achieved a partial response. Conclusions Overall, activity of systemic therapies after cabozantinib was limited. Micro abstract We performed a retrospective analysis on 56 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received at least 1 systemic treatment line after cabozantinib. Median OS after cabozantinib was 7.7 months, while median TTF after cabozantinib was 2.8 months. Further investigation is needed in this clinical context

Context Identifying the most effective first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is challenging as rapidly evolving data quickly outdate the existing body of evidence, and current approaches to presenting the evidence in user-friendly formats are fraught with limitations. Objective To maintain living evidence for contemporary first-line treatment for previously untreated mRCC. Evidence acquisition We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR) and network meta-analysis for first-line treatment of mRCC using data from randomized controlled trials comparing contemporary treatment options with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We applied an advanced programming and artificial intelligence–assisted framework for evidence synthesis to create a living search strategy, facilitate screening and data extraction using a graphical user interface, automate the frequentist network meta-analysis, and display results in an interactive manner. Evidence synthesis As of October 22, 2020, the LISR includes data from 14 clinical trials. Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table. The cabozantinib + nivolumab combination (CaboNivo) is ranked the highest for the overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, whereas ipilimumab + nivolumab (NivoIpi) is ranked the highest for achieving a complete response (CR). NivoIpi, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AteBev) were ranked highest (lowest toxicity) and CaboNivo ranked lowest for treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Network meta-analysis results are summarized as interactive tables and plots, GRADE summary-of-findings tables, and evidence maps. Conclusions This innovative living and interactive review provides the best current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatment options for patients with untreated mRCC. Trial-level comparisons suggest that CaboNivo is likely to cause more AEs but is ranked best for all efficacy outcomes, except NivoIpi offers the best chance of CR. Pembrolizumab + axitinib and NivoIpi are acceptable alternatives, except NivoIpi may not be preferred for patients with favorable risk. Although network meta-analysis provides rankings with statistical adjustments, there are inherent biases in cross-trial comparisons with sparse direct evidence that does not replace randomized comparisons. Patient summary It is challenging to decide the best option among the several treatment combinations of immunotherapy and targeted treatments for newly diagnosed metastatic kidney cancer. We have created interactive evidence summaries of multiple treatment options that present the benefits and harms and evidence certainty for patient-important outcomes. This evidence is updated as soon as new studies are published.

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) frequently induce cardiovascular adverse events, though VEGFR-TKIs contribute to the improvement of the prognosis of patients with malignancies. It is widely accepted that VEGFR-TKIs impair left ventricular systolic functions; however, their effects on diastolic functions remain to be fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of VEGFR-TKIs on left ventricular diastolic functions. This study was designed as a retrospective single-center cohort study in Japan. We assessed 24 cases who received VEGFR-TKI monotherapy (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, axitinib) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) above 50% during the therapy at the Osaka University Hospital from January 2008 to June 2019. Left ventricular diastolic functions were evaluated by the change in echocardiographic parameters before and after the VEGFR-TKI treatment. Both septal e' and lateral e's decreased after treatment (septal e': before, 6.1 ± 1.8; after, 5.0 ± 1.9; n = 21, P < 0.01; lateral e': before, 8.7 ± 2.8; after, 6.9 ± 2.3; n = 21, P < 0.01). E/A declined after VEGFR-TKIs administration, though not statistically significantly. In 20 cases with at least one risk factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), E/A significantly decreased (0.87 ± 0.34 versus 0.68 ± 0.14; P < 0.05) as well as the septal and lateral e's. These results suggest that treatment with VEGFR-TKIs impairs left ventricular diastolic functions in patients with preserved LVEF, especially in those with risk factors for HFpEF.

Purpose: To evaluate the association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. Experimental Design: Adult patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear-cell component, ≥1 measurable lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, fresh or archival tumor specimen, and adequate renal, cardiac, and hepatic function were included. Retrospective analyses of the association between baseline NLR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms were performed using the first interim analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006). Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were conducted. Translational data were assessed to elucidate the underlying biology associated with differences in NLR. Results: Patients with below-median NLR had longer observed PFS with avelumab plus axitinib [stratified HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.634–1.153] or sunitinib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.415–0.745). In the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms, respectively, median PFS was 13.8 and 11.2 months in patients with below-median NLR, and 13.3 and 5.6 months in patients with median-or-higher NLR. Below-median NLR was also associated with longer observed OS in the avelumab plus axitinib (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.300–0.871) and sunitinib arms (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.174–0.511). Tumor analyses showed an association between NLR and key biological characteristics, suggesting a role of NLR in underlying mechanisms influencing clinical outcome. Conclusions: Current data support NLR as a prognostic biomarker in patients with advanced RCC receiving avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib.

Purpose of review To perform indirect comparisons of efficacy and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapies for renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC). Recent findings Five trials were included in our network meta-analyses comprising 568 patients. The combinations nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus cabozantinib achieved significant improvement of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rates (ORR). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with the highest likelihood of achieving a complete response. All the included combinations significantly improved PFS and ORR. The combinations of pembrolizumab plus axitinib did not show a statistically significant association with OS. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had the highest likelihood of improving PFS and OS. Summary Our network meta-analysis demonstrates that sRCC are responsive to immune-based combinations. The dual ICI with nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved all efficacy outcomes and achieved the highest complete response rates (CRR). Although the association of nivolumab plus cabozantinib with CRR was not statistically significant, this combination demonstrated the highest likelihood of PFS and OS improvements.

Although combination immune checkpoint inhibitor (immuno‐oncology [IO]) therapy is the first‐line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), it mostly causes resistance and tumor regrowth. Therefore, an optimal second‐line therapy is necessary. Such therapy typically comprises vascular endothelial growth factor receptor‐tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR‐TKIs). This study was aimed at comparing the efficacy of two TKIs—axitinib and sunitinib—in mRCC patients. From January 2008 to October 2018, we registered 703 mRCC patients from 8 Japanese institutes. Of these, 408 patients received axitinib or sunitinib as the first‐line treatment. Thereafter, efficacy and survival rate were compared between the axitinib and sunitinib groups. To reduce the effects of selection bias and potential confounders, propensity score matching analysis was performed. Axitinib and sunitinib were administered in 274 and 134 patients, respectively. More than 25% of the patients received nivolumab sequence therapy. To calculate the propensity scores for each patient, we performed multivariate logistic regression analysis. The objective response rate, progression‐free survival (PFS), cause‐specific survival, and overall survival (OS) were significantly better in the axitinib group than in the sunitinib group. Furthermore, the OS was better in the nivolumab‐treated patients in the axitinib group. Axitinib showed higher efficacy and afforded greater survival benefits than did sunitinib when administered as first‐line therapy in mRCC patients. Thus, from among VEGFR‐TKIs, axitinib might be a possible option for application in the middle of IO drug‐based treatment sequences., Compared to sunitinib, axitinib showed higher efficacy and afforded greater survival benefits as first‐line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Axitinib might be better than sunitinib for application in the middle of IO drug‐based treatment sequences.

Background The efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based therapy after previous immuno-oncology therapy (IO) failure has been addressed before. However, summary efficacy estimates have never been generated in these reports. We addressed this void. Material and methods We systematically examined TKI efficacy after IO-failure and generated weighted median progression-free survival (PFS) estimates for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib. A systematic review according to PRISMA was conducted. PubMed and abstracts were queried. Only studies proving median PFS were included. Weighted medians were computed for each TKI alternative. Results Of 245 articles, nine eligible studies were included in the current study with 952 analysed patients. Weighted PFS medians after any previous IO-based therapy were respectively 13.7 (range from 4.6 to 24.4), 8.1 (range from 4.7 to 13.2), 8.5 (range from 4.7 to 15.2) and 6.9 months (range from 2.9 to 11.6) for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib. Specific second-line weighted PFS median was 14.8 months (range from 5.6 to 24.4), 10.1 months (range from 6.4 to 13.2), 8.7 months (range from 4.7 to 15.2) and 6.0 months (range from 2.9 to 8.0) for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib, respectively, after first-line IO. Conclusion Pazopanib results in the longest weighted median PFS, after previous IO-failure, regardless of treatment line, as well as in specific second-line, post-first-line IO failure settings. Pending novel studies, Pazopanib appears to represent the most promising treatment option after prior IO.

Introduction: In the evolving treatment scenario of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, cabozantinib is gaining increasing attention, presenting as a cornerstone therapy, both as a monotherapy and in combination with immune-checkpoint inhibitors.Areas covered: In this review, the authors explore the role of cabozantinib in the treatment of metastatic clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, presenting data from the most recent clinical trials and investigating ongoing studies. They, furthermore, evaluate the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and immunomodulatory effect of cabozantinib, as well as underlining the tolerability profile and patients' quality of life.Expert opinion: Cabozantinib's administration as a single agent is restricted to intermediate- and poor-risk patients (according to IMDC criteria). The further advent of anti-VEGF-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors combined with immune checkpoint inhibitor regimens (such as pembrolizumab + axitinib) has allowed to expand the use of cabozantinib, leading to its combination with nivolumab. In the next few years, more information is required to look for the application of cabozantinib-based combinations as a later-line approach in metastatic RCC patients, beside their use in the first-line setting.

Background We performed subgroup analyses of the AFTER I-O study to clarify the association of time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and discontinuation reason of prior immune-oncology (I-O) therapy, and molecular targeted therapy (TT) regimen with the outcomes of TT after I-O. Methods The data of Japanese metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with TT after nivolumab (NIVO) (CheckMate 025) or NIVO + ipilimumab (IPI) (CheckMate 214) were retrospectively analyzed. The objective response rates (ORRs), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of TT after I-O were analyzed by subgroups: TTF (, Efficacy of molecular targeted therapy after immune-oncology therapy was favorable without new safety signals, regardless of time to treatment failure and reason for discontinuation of prior I-O, and TT regimen.

Importance Thymic carcinoma (TC) is a rare aggressive tumour occurring in adults characterised by one of the lowest tumor mutational burdens (TMB). Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a mutational signature, caused by defects in the DNA MisMatch Repair (MMR) system, that predicts benefit from immunotherapy and causes high TMB. Fragmentary and unstructured evidence of these conditions co-occurring are reported in literature. Objective Review available data on the co-occurrence of these two conditions and determine its frequency in our institute case series. Design We performed a systematic analysis of literature and a retrospective evaluation of all the cases of TET treated at our institution from 2000 to 2020, selecting patients with a medical history of multiple tumours to enhance a priori probability of identifying cases with underlying predisposition. Results Literature yielded 3 cases of patients with MSI TC, for which MMR gene alteration was reported. None of them received immunotherapy. Of 366 patients with TETs treated in our institute, 32 had a medical history of multiple tumours and 25 of 32 (19 thymomas and 6 TCs) had available tissue for MMR analysis. One patient with TC showed a high TMB, and MSI due to MLH1 mutation and was treated in a phase II study with avelumab and axitinib combination obtaining a long-lasting partial response. MLH1 alterations are shared across MSI TC cases. Conclusions and relevance This analysis highlights the usefulness of MSI testing in patients with TC. The observation of cases of TC occurring in patients with Lynch syndrome and the unexpected homogeneity of gene alterations support further investigation.

Introduction The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib has recently been approved as a first-line treatment for previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma. However, immune-related adverse events are not well known. Case presentation A 65-year-old male was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma with metastases to the brain and lungs. The patient had a medical history of stasis dermatitis. During the combined treatment of pembrolizumab and axitinib, blisters appeared on the lower extremities. Skin biopsy revealed septal panniculitis, pustules, and perivascular lymphocytic and neutrophilic infiltration of the skin, and the patient was diagnosed with immune-related dermatitis. The dermatitis improved with oral prednisolone treatment. Conclusion A case of immune-related dermatitis during combinatorial treatment with pembrolizumab and axitinib for renal cell carcinoma has been reported. Preexisting stasis dermatitis may have affected the onset and deterioration of immune-related dermatitis.

Antibodies targeting the PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4 immune checkpoint axis have been used in a variety of tumor types. They achieve anti-tumor activity through activating the patient’s own immune system to target immune response evading cancer cells. However, this unique mechanism of action may cause immune-related adverse events, irAEs. One of these irAEs is myocarditis which is associated with an alarming mortality rate. In this study we presented clinical cases of myocarditis from safety trial datasets submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Additionally, we analyzed over fourteen million FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, FAERS, submissions. The statistical analysis of the FAERS data provided evidence of significantly increased reporting of myocarditis in patients administered immune checkpoint inhibitors alone, in combination with another immune checkpoint inhibitor, the kinase inhibitor axitinib, or chemotherapy, for all cancer types, when compared to patients administered chemotherapy. All combination therapies led to further increased reporting odds ratios of myocarditis. We further analyzed the occurrence of myocarditis by stratifying the reports into sub-cohorts based on specific cancer types and treatment/control groups in major cancer immunotherapy efficacy trials and confirmed the observed trend for each cohort.

In current clinical guidelines, such as those provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), evidence for treatment is based on a small clinical trial that included patients with HLRCC. They support the use of the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab as the first therapeutic option in this rare condition. In the present study, we report a rare case of this condition in an 18-year-old male with a family history of kidney cancer whom we successfully treated with surgery and a novel drug treatment modality based on the combination of an immune check-point inhibitor (ICPI) and a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) with excellent and promising results.

Background & Aims A plethora of second-line therapies have been recently introduced for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment with promising results. A meta-analysis of second-line treatments for HCC has been performed to better tailor their use based on improved patient stratification and to identify the best available option. Methods Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating second-line treatment for advanced HCC in patients already treated with sorafenib. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and drug withdrawal due to adverse events. Network meta-analyses were performed considering placebo as the basis for comparison in efficacy and safety analyses. Subgroup stratification considered gender, age, sorafenib-responsiveness and drug tolerability, viral infection, macrovascular invasion, HCC extrahepatic spread, performance status, and alpha-fetoprotein levels. Results Fourteen phase II or III randomized controlled trials, involving 5,488 patients and 12 regimens, were included in the analysis. Regorafenib (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50–0.79), cabozantinib (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.63–0.92), and ramucirumab (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.70–0.76) significantly prolonged OS compared with placebo. Cabozantinib (HR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.36–0.52), regorafenib (HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.37–0.56), ramucirumab (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.43–0.68), brivanib (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.42–0.76), S-1 (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.46–0.77), axitinib (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.44–0.87), and pembrolizumab (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.57–0.90) significantly improved PFS compared with placebo. None of the compared drugs deemed undoubtedly superior after having performed a patients’ stratification. Conclusions The results of this network meta-analysis suggest the use of regorafenib and cabozantinib as second-line treatments in HCC.

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treatment has been revolutionized by the introduction of vascular endothelial growth factor antagonists (anti-VEGF), but the need for frequent intravitreal injections poses a heavy burden to patients and physicians. Evolving anti-VEGF therapies include longer duration agents, approaches that target multiple pathways, topical anti-VEGF agents, sustained-release, and genetic therapies. Abicipar pegol, a designed ankyrin repeat protein (DARPin), demonstrated the ability to maintain stable visual acuity with 12-week dosing, but was not approved by the FDA due to higher than usual rates of intraocular inflammation. Conbercept, a recombinant anti-VEGF fusion protein, has been approved in China, and is in Phase 3 trials globally. KSI-301 is an anti-VEGF antibody biopolymer conjugate that allowed 66% of nAMD patients to maintain at least a 6-month treatment-free interval in Phase 1b studies. OPT-302, an inhibitor of VEGF-C/D, will be tested in phase 3 studies that compare anti-VEGF-A monotherapy against combination therapy with OPT-302. Faricimab is a bispecific anti-VEGF/Ang-2 antibody that upregulates the Tie-2 signaling pathway and promotes vascular stability; it is undergoing phase 3 trials with potential for 12- or 16-week dosing. PAN-90806 is a topical anti-VEGF agent that showed the ability to reduce injection frequency by 79% compared to ranibizumab monotherapy in a phase 1/2a trial. Sustained-release anti-VEGF therapies include the ranibizumab Port Delivery System (in phase 3 studies), GB-102 (Phase 2b), OTX-TKI (phase 1), and Durasert (preclinical). Suprachoroidal delivery of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor, axitinib, is in preclinical studies. Genetic therapies in phase 1 studies include RGX-314 and ADVM-022, which introduce a viral vector that modifies the retina’s cellular apparatus to create an anti-VEGF biofactory, potentially serving as a one-time treatment. Further investigation is warranted for drugs and delivery systems that hope to advance visual outcomes and reduce treatment burden of nAMD.

Purpose of review To compare the safety profiles of systemic immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapies that were evaluated in the first-line setting of the management of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Recent findings Six phase III randomized control trials comparing first-line immune-based combination therapies to sunitinib in previously untreated patients with mRCC. Network meta-analyses were conducted to compare treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment discontinuation, and treatment-related mortality. Summary Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with the highest likelihood of grade ≥3 TRAEs, and treatment discontinuation rates. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with the lowest rates of grade ≥3 TRAEs. However, it was associated with a higher likelihood of endocrine-related adverse events (AEs). A higher likelihood of high-grade diarrhea was associated with pembrolizumab plus axitinib and avelumab plus axitinib. All combinations showed low rates of hematological AEs.

Introduction: The dominant paradigm of sequential therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with single agents has recently been challenged by improved outcomes obtained with combined regimens with immune checkpoint inhibitors. These combined regimens include the combination of pembrolizumab plus axitinib.Areas covered: Here, we provide a brief overview of the current clinical data on the pembrolizumab plus axitinib combination including mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety profile.Expert opinion: Both agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway and immune checkpoint inhibitors are active as single agents in mRCC. Improved outcomes have been demonstrated in phase 3 trials in comparison with sunitinib for the combinations of axitinib plus pembrolizumab, axitinib plus avelumab, bevacizumab plus atezolizumab, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Among these combinations, an OS benefit has, so far, demonstrated only for the combinations of axitinib with pembrolizumab and ipilimumab with nivolumab. Although there are currently no prospective data comparing the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab with the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and VEGF inhibitors, currently available retrospective analyses indicate that these two approaches achieve comparable outcomes.

Purpose of review To discuss treatment decisions in the first-line setting of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Recent findings Immune check point inhibitor (ICI) combinations have replaced sunitinib as the standard of care in the first-line treatment of mRCC. Dual ICI treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab was shown to significantly improve overall survival and objective response rates. Similarly, the ICI-tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations pembrolizumab and axitinib and nivolumab and cabozantinib have demonstrated superiority in terms of overall survival, objective response rates and progression-free survival versus sunitinib. The lack of both comparative trials and predictive markers impedes individualized treatment decisions. Clinicians are left to make treatment choices based on clinical and biological factors. These factors may include differences in toxicity profiles, the rate of complete remission, a clinical situation that requires urgent tumor shrinkage, the presence of inflammation, histological or immune-histochemical features and others. Summary In the absence of comparative trials, clinical and biological factors may facilitate the choice between various treatment options in the first-line setting of mRCC. In addition, both the experience of the physician with a specific treatment together with patient's preferences and expectations of systemic therapy may be part of the decision-making process.

Longer follow-up and new trial data from phase 3 randomised controlled trials investigating immune checkpoint blockade (PD-1 or its ligand PD-L1) in advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have recently become available. The CheckMate 9ER trial demonstrated an improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit for the combination of cabozantinib plus nivolumab. A Keynote-426 update demonstrated an ongoing OS benefit for pembrolizumab plus axitinib in the intention-to-treat population, with a PFS benefit seen across all International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) subgroups, while an update of CheckMate 214 confirmed the long-term benefit of ipilimumab plus nivolumab in IMDC intermediate and poor risk patients. The RCC Guidelines Panel continues to recommend these tyrosine kinase inhibitors + immunotherapy (IO) combination across IMDC risk groups in advanced first-line RCC and dual immunotherapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab in IMDC intermediate and poor risk. PATIENT SUMMARY: New data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced kidney cancer confirm a survival benefit with the combination of cabozantinib plus nivolumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib and ipilimumab plus nivolumab. These combination therapies are recommended as first-line treatment for advanced kidney cancer.

Background: Axitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptor signaling and is approved for second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Although the occurrence of hypertension with axitinib use has been documented, it is unclear whether a first-line TKI regimen can significantly affect the development of hypertension when axitinib is used as second-line therapy. Methods and Results: In this single-center retrospective study, advanced RCC patients treated with axitinib after first-line chemotherapy were divided into 2 groups according to the use of TKIs as part of first-line treatment before the initiation of axitinib. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients who were treated with (TKI(+); n=11) or without (TKI(-); n=11) a TKI. Although 63.6% of all patients had hypertension at baseline, axitinib-induced hypertension developed in 81.8% of patients, and 36.4% of patients experienced Grade 3 hypertension. After initiation of axitinib, both systolic and diastolic blood pressures and the hypertension grade were significantly elevated both in the TKI(+) and TKI(-) groups, and the number of antihypertensive drugs was significantly increased among all patients. Conclusions: This study suggests the need for proper monitoring and management of blood pressure in RCC patients treated with axitinib, regardless of a prior regimen with or without TKIs.

Background Axitinib plus pembrolizumab showed superior overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) versus sunitinib in a randomised phase III trial in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). We report long-term efficacy and safety of the axitinib/pembrolizumab from the phase I trial (NCT02133742), after 46–55 months from study initiation (data cut-off date, 23rd July 2019). Methods Fifty-two treatment-naive patients with advanced RCC were treated with oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily and intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks. PFS, duration of response (DoR) and OS were summarised using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results At a median follow-up of 42.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.1–44.1), median OS was not reached; 38 (73.1%) patients were alive. The probability of being alive at 4 years was 66.8% (95% CI: 49.1–79.5). Median PFS in the overall population was 23.5 months (95% CI: 15.4–30.4). ORR was 73.1%; five patients had complete response. Median DoR was 22.1 months (95% CI: 15.1–34.5). Grade III/IV adverse events (AEs) were reported in 38 (73.1%) patients and 20 (38.5%) discontinued treatment because of AEs: 17 (32.7%) discontinued axitinib, 13 (25.0%) discontinued pembrolizumab, and 10 (19.2%) discontinued both drugs. Common AEs included diarrhoea (84.6%), fatigue (80.8%), hypertension (53.8%), cough (48.1%) and dysphonia (48.1%). There were no new AE terms reported and no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions In patients with advanced RCC with ~4 years of follow-up, combination axitinib/pembrolizumab continued to demonstrate clinical benefit, with no new safety signals.

Objectives Guidelines for treatment of mRCC recommend nivolumab monotherapy (NIVO) for treated patients, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy (NIVO+IPI) for untreated IMDC intermediate and poor-risk mRCC patients. Although molecular-targeted therapies (TTs) such as VEGFR-TKIs and mTORi are recommended as subsequent therapy after NIVO or NIVO+IPI, their efficacy and safety remain unclear. Methods Outcome of Japanese patients with mRCC who received TT after NIVO (CheckMate 025) or NIVO+IPI (CheckMate 214) were retrospectively analyzed. Primary endpoints were investigator-assessed ORR of the first TT after either NIVO or NIVO+IPI. Secondary endpoints included TFS, PFS, OS and safety of TTs. Results Twenty six patients in CheckMate 025 and 19 patients in CheckMate 214 from 20 centers in Japan were analyzed. As the first subsequent TT after NIVO or NIVO+IPI, axitinib was the most frequently treated regimen for both CheckMate 025 (54%) and CheckMate 214 (47%) patients. The ORRs of TT after NIVO and NIVO+IPI were 27 and 32% (all risks), and median PFSs were 8.9 and 16.3 months, respectively. During the treatment of first TT after either NIVO or NIVO+IPI, 98% of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events, including grade 3–4 events in 51% of patients, and no treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusions TTs have favorable antitumor activity in patients with mRCC after ICI, possibly via changing the mechanism of action. Safety signals of TTs after ICI were similar to previous reports. These results indicate that sequential TTs after ICI may contribute for long survival benefit., Outcome of targeted molecular therapies after discontinuation of nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with mRCC was retrospectively analyzed. Efficacy was favorable, and safety was similar to previous reports.

Purpose To externally validate the utility of the albumin, C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase model to predict the overall survival of previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients. Patients and methods The ability of the albumin, C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase model to predict overall survival was validated and compared with those of other prognostication models using data from 421 metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving second-line axitinib therapy at 36 hospitals belonging to the Japan Urologic Oncology Group. Results The following factors in this cohort were independently associated with poor overall survival in a multivariate analysis: a low Karnofsky performance status, 50%. The superiority of the albumin, C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase model to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium models, but not the Japan Urologic Oncology Group model, was demonstrated by multiple statistical analyses. Conclusions The utility of the albumin, C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase model as a simple and objective prognostication tool was successfully validated using data from 421 metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving second-line axitinib.

Considering clinical benefits of new combination therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), this study aims to calculate the number needed to treat (NTT) and the cost of preventing an event (COPE) for pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P + A), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N + I) as first-line treatments, from the Brazilian private perspective. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data for intermediate- and poor-risk groups were obtained from KEYNOTE-426 and CHECKMATE-214 trials for P + A and N + I, respectively, versus sunitinib as mRCC first-line treatment. Considering a 12-month time horizon, 6 patients should be treated with P + A to prevent one death with sunitinib use, resulting in a COPE of 3,893,903 BRL. Using N + I, NNT for 12-month OS rate was 13 compared to sunitinib, with a COPE of 6,357,965 BRL. Regarding PFS data, NNT was also 6 when comparing P + A versus sunitinib, with an estimated COPE of 3,893,903 BRL. Estimated NNT was 20 comparing N + I and sunitinib, resulting in a COPE of 10,172,744 BRL. Cost differences between two treatment options, reached more than 6 million BRL for PFS, and 2 million BRL for OS. At the 12-month landmark, P + A suggests better economic scenario versus N + I as first-line mRCC treatment option for intermediate- and poor-risk groups, through an indirect comparison using sunitinib as a common comparator.

In recent years, first-line therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have shifted to a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors or a combination of antiangiogenesis tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immunotherapy. This has led to a need to address standard-of-care treatment in the second-line setting. Our review presents an analysis of current and upcoming data to guide treatment decisions. After progression on nivolumab plus ipilimumab, current data favor monotherapy TKI with cabozantinib or axitinib. Current literature for second-line therapy given after combination TKI plus immunotherapy shows the strongest evidence for either single-agent cabozantinib or combination everolimus with lenvatinib. Investigations are ongoing for the role of TKIs with immunotherapy in the second-line setting. Novel agents, such as HIF2α inhibitors, are currently being studied as single agents and in combination with other treatment modalities in efforts to improve patient outcomes in mRCC.

Sequential administration of single targeted agents has been challenged as the dominant treatment paradigm in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma by improved outcomes obtained with combination regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most patients treated with sequential monotherapy eventually develop drug resistance and succumb to progressive disease, leading to the search for therapies that would overcome drug resistance and result in a more durable treatment response. Improved outcomes have been demonstrated in Phase III trials in comparison with sunitinib for the combinations of axitinib plus pembrolizumab, axitinib plus avelumab, bevacizumab plus atezolizumab and ipilimumab plus nivolumab. A statistically significant improvement of both progression-free and overall survival has been demonstrated for the axitinib plus pembrolizumab combination.

The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331.Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis.With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma.Merck SharpDohme Corp, a subsidiary of MerckCo, Inc.

Aim: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma with pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib from the US payer perspective. Patients & methods: A Markov model was developed for this purpose. The clinical data were obtained from the KEYNOTE-426 trial. Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published studies. Results: The incremental cost–effectiveness ratios of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was $249,704 per quality-adjusted life year, which was higher than a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was not considered to be cost-effective versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the US payer perspective.

Owing to an improved understanding of the immunobiological profile of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the past few years have ushered in significant changes in systemic therapies for advanced stage RCC. First-line treatment with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) has been virtually replaced for most patients by immunotherapy combinations. The first of such treatments was the dual immune checkpoint inhibitor combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. More recently, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a TKI has also moved into the first-line setting. This review summarizes the pharmacologic properties, evidence for use and safety of avelumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor and axitinib a small-molecule TKI, each as monotherapy, and in combination for the management of metastatic RCC.

The treatment strategy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved with the emergence of anti-angiogenic drugs, in particular tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Both treatment options improved patient outcomes and altered the natural history of mRCC. Clinical studies have focused on evaluating combination regimens containing ICI and VEGFR-targeted TKIs. The combination of axitinib with pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-426) showed better results compared to sunitinib in patients with mRCC who had not previously received systemic therapy. In this article, we discuss the rationale for the combination of ICI and TKI based on preclinical data, as well as the clinical results obtained with the combination of axitinib with pembrolizumab in first-line patients in clinical trials.

Summary Objective. – To update the French guidelines on kidney cancer. Methods. – A systematic review of the literature between 2015 and 2020 was performed. The most relevant articles regarding the diagnosis, the classification, surgical treatment, medical treatment and follow-up of kidney cancer were retrieved and included in the new guidelines. The guidelines were updated with corresponding levels of evidence. Results. – Thoraco-abdominal CT scan with injection is the best radiological exam for the diagnosis of kidney cancer. MRI and contrast ultra-sound can be useful in some cases. Percutaneous biopsy is recommended when histological results will affect clinical decision. Renal tumours must be classified according to pTNM 2017 classification and ISUP grade. Metastatic kidney cancers must be classified according to IMDC criteria. Partial nephrectomy is the recommended treatment for T1a tumours and can be done through an open, laparoscopic or robotic access. T1b tumours can be treated by partial or total nephrectomy according to tumour complexity. Radical nephrectomy is the recommended treatment of advanced localized tumours. There is no recommended adjuvant treatment. In metastatic patients: cyto-reductive nephrectomy can be offered in case of good prognosis; medical treatment must be counseled first in case of intermediate or bad prognosis. Surgical or local treatment of metastases should be considered in case of solitary lesion or oligo-metastases. First line recommended drugs in metastatic patients include the associations axitinib/pembrolizumab and nivolumab/ipilimumab. Cystic tumours must be classified according to Bosniak Classification. Surgical excision should be offered to patients with Bosniak III and IV lesions. It is recommended to follow patients clinically and with imaging according to tumour aggressiveness. Conclusion. – These updated recommendations should assist French speaking urologists for their management of kidney cancers.

Purpose: Combined axitinib/pembrolizumab is approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This exploratory analysis examined associations between angiogenic and immune-related biomarkers and outcomes following axitinib/pembrolizumab treatment. Patients and Methods: Prospectively defined retrospective correlative exploratory analyses tested biospecimens from 52 treatment-naïve patients receiving axitinib and pembrolizumab (starting doses 5 mg twice daily and 2 mg/kg respectively, every 3 weeks). Tumor tissue, serum, and whole blood samples were collected at baseline, at cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1), and end of treatment (EOT) for blood-based samples. Clinical outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Higher baseline tumor levels of CD8 showed a trend toward longer PFS (HR 0.4; P = 0.091). Higher baseline serum levels of CXCL10 (P = 0.0197) and CEACAM1 (P = 0.085) showed a trend toward better ORR and longer PFS, respectively. Patients for whom IL6 was not detected at baseline had longer PFS versus patients for whom it was detected (HR 0.4; P = 0.028). At C2D1 and/or EOT, mainly immune-related biomarkers showed any association with better outcomes. The genes CA9 (P = 0.084), HIF1A (P = 0.064), and IFNG (P = 0.073) showed trending associations with ORR, and AKT3 (P = 0.0145), DDX58 (P = 0.0726), GZMA (P = 0.0666), LCN2 (NGAL; P = 0.0267), and PTPN11 (P = 0.0287) with PFS. Conclusions: With combined axitinib/pembrolizumab treatment in patients with aRCC, mostly immune-related biomarkers are associated with better treatment outcomes. This exploratory analysis has identified some candidate biomarkers to consider in future prospective testing.

What is known and objective Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is the most common type of kidney cancers. Disease-specific survival for mRCC has been significantly improved with the introduction of new targeted agents since 2005. However, there is a lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy between therapies. This study compared indirectly progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among first-line and second-line therapies in patients with mRCC using network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods The PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to identify phase II or phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of targeted and biological therapies in patients with mRCC published between January 2000 and June 2020. The Bayesian fixed-effect NMA was performed to evaluate relative PFS and OS of first-line and second-line therapies of axitinib, bevacizumab, cabozantinib, everolimus, lenvatinib, nivolumab, ipilimumab, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus, tivozanib, avelumab and pembrolizumab, which were approved by the Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency. End points were compared using hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible interval (CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was estimated to assess the probability of being the best treatment. Results and discussion A total of 26 RCTs (first line: 19, second line: 9) with 13 893 patients were included in the NMA. For the first-line therapy, cabozantinib was associated with the highest improved PFS (HR = 0.26, 95% CrI = 0.14-0.44) followed by avelumab + axitinib and pembrolizumab + axitinib (HR = 0.27, SUCRA = 90%). Pembrolizumab + axitinib had a high likelihood of being the preferred treatment when using OS as the outcome measure (HR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.16-0.85). Avelumab + axitinib had the lowest HR compared with placebo + interferon on discontinuations due to AE (HR = 1.04, 95% CrI = 0.54-1.86). For second-line therapy, cabozantinib was identified as the most effective treatment option when assessing PFS (HR = 0.17, 95% CrI = 0.12-0.24). Axitinib had the lowest HR of OS and discontinuation due to AE (HR = 0.54, 95% CrI = 0.40-0.71; HR = 0.98, 95% CrI = 0.42-1.97, respectively). Pazopanib was the second choice in terms of OS (HR = 0.56, 95% CrI = 0.28-1.00; SUCRA = 76%) compared with placebo. What is new and conclusion With respect to PFS and OS improvement, cabozantinib, avelumab + axitinib and pembrolizumab + axitinib are likely to be the preferred options for the first-line therapy and cabozantinib and axitinib for the second-line therapy in the management of mRCC. Regarding safety, avelumab + axitinib and temsirolimus were considered preferred treatment options in first-line and second-line therapies. More future research is needed to establish subgroup analyses, allowing evaluation of the impact of some of the differences in patient characteristics, including treatment effect modifiers.

Background/aim Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are treatment options for metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). However, the treatment options after nivolumab are unclear. Patients and methods The medical records of 57 consecutive Japanese mRCC patients who underwent treatment with axitinib were reviewed. Among those, 17 patients received axitinib treatment after nivolumab and 40 patients received axitinib treatment after other chemotherapy regimens except nivolumab. Results Of the 57 patients with mRCC, only 17 underwent axitinib therapy after nivolumab. Among these 17 patients, the objective response rate (ORR) and median tumor shrinkage rate were 56.3% and -30%, respectively. They were significantly better in patients who underwent axitinib therapy after nivolumab than after other therapies (p=0.026 and p=0.012, respectively). However, all 17 patients experienced some adverse events and nine patients (52.9%) required a dose reduction or axitinib treatment interruption. Conclusion Axitinib therapy after the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab showed good efficacy with a moderate risk of adverse events. Careful management by skilled professionals may be required.

This study compared real-world outcomes of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), we retrospectively evaluated intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC patients who were treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Nivo-Ipi), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) as the first-line therapy between August 2015 and January 2020. We compared oncological outcomes between the Nivo-Ipi group and TKIs group using multivariate logistic regression analysis with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method. In this study 278 patients were included. There were 52 and 226 patients in the Nivo-Ipi and TKIs groups (sunitinib 97, axitinib 118, sorafenib 9, pazopanib 2), respectively. The median age in the Nivo-Ipi and TKIs groups were 69 and 67 years, respectively. There was no significant difference in age, performance status, history of nephrectomy, and the IMDC risk group distribution between the groups. The objective response rate was significantly higher in the Nivo-Ipi group (38%) than in the TKIs group (23%, P = 0.018). The IPTW-adjusted Cox regression analysis showed that a significantly longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.60, P = 0.039) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.51, P = 0.037) rates in the Nivo-Ipi group than those in the TKIs group. The oncological outcomes of patients receiving the first-line therapy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in real-world practice were significantly improved in comparison with first-line TKIs therapy.

The past 30 years have borne witness to a gradual evolution in the treatment landscape of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Early immunotherapy approaches such as interferon-α and high-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2) therapy in this immunogenic tumor provided durable responses in only a minority of patients and came with toxic side effects. A growing understanding of the tumor biology elucidated pathways of tumorigenesis, which in turn revealed novel targets amenable to targeted therapies. Inhibition of angiogenesis and cell signaling emerged as cornerstones of treatment with the approval of bevacizumab and several pan-kinase and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Though effective, their use has been limited by low rates of durable response, resistance, and side effects. The immunotherapy revolution of the past decade has led to immunotherapy-based combination regimens such as ipilimumab plus nivolumab, pembrolizumab plus axitinib, and avelumab plus axitinib, displacing single agent anti-angiogenic therapy in the first-line setting by demonstrating durable responses and improved survival over sunitinib. These immunotherapy-based combinations define first-line standard of care for aRCC today. The pipeline of second-line agents for consideration in patients who have disease progression despite immunotherapy regimens is robust but still in early stages of development.

The usefulness of the urine protein : creatine ratio (UPCR) in management of molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy has not been studied, although urine protein dipstick testing (uPr) is widely used in the clinical setting. The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness of UPCR as compared to uPr in patients undergoing molecular targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A total of 25 patients (median age 68 years) with advanced RCC were included. Sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib, sorefenib, everolimus, and nivolumab were administered to 15, 9, 16, 3, 7, and 13 patients, respectively, with duplication. Proteinuria was managed according to the grade determined by UPCR. Data at every treatment visit were retrospectively collected and uPr and UPCR were compared. The overall incidences of any grade of proteinuria associated with sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib, sorafenib and everolimus were 86.7, 88.9, 93.8, 100, and 85.7%, respectively. There were discordances between the uPr-based grade and UPCR-based grade. UPCR did not meet the criteria of Grade 3 in 70.6, 100, 83.3, and 83.3% at visits in cases with uPr 3+ for sunitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, and everolimus, respectively. In axitinib treatment, UPCR did not meet the criteria for withholding in 46.2% of the cases of uPr 2+ and more. Our study suggests that UPCR may be useful tool in management of adverse events associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, everolimus and can provide patients with optimal opportunities for receiving treatment.

Immune-based combinations, including nivolumab plus ipilimumab, pembrolizumab plus axitinib, and (at a lesser extent) avelumab plus axitinib, should be regarded among the new standards of care for first line therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Toxicity profiles are different among all these above combinations, as well as between them and targeted agents monotherapies, including sunitinib (i.e. the control arm of all the above studies). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to compare adverse events from immune-based combinations versus sunitinib monotherapy across four recent randomized controlled trials (CheckMate-214, Keynote-426, IMmotion-151, and JAVELIN Renal 101) of front-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, with particular attention to those from the ipilimumab plus nivolumab combination. Beyond efficacy and activity, the ipilimumab plus nivolumab combination appears feasible, being endowed by an acceptable safety profile, in line with that of the other available options for the treatment of metastatic RCC. The different patterns of toxicities emerging from this systematic review and meta-analysis need to be kept in mind while choosing the appropriate treatment for each individual patient. Furthermore, prevention, prompt identification, and treatment of immune-related adverse events remains an area to be improved.

Purpose We analyze a number of studies that describe the relationship between the onset of hypothyroidism and the prognosis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with TKIs. Patients and methods Targeted therapies are currently considered as the first-line treatment for patients with mRCC. The occurrence of hypothyroidism in the treatment of mRCC with TKIs is a major side effect. A comprehensive search was performed in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Institute for Scientific Information, and CKNI. The following keywords and descriptors were used during the search and were combined in a number of sequences in English and Chinese languages: protein kinase inhibitors (including sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib, axitinib, sorafenib), hypothyroidism and renal cell carcinoma. Results Scholars have studied the clinical relationship between hypothyroidism and TKI treatment and its molecular biology mechanism. Most studies hold that hypothyroidism occurring during TKI therapy may serve as potential biomarkers of response and efficacy of treatment, but there is no consensus on this point. Conclusion The mechanism of hypothyroidism occurring is still unclear. Therefore, more studies are needed to clarify whether better outcomes are associated with TKI-induced hypothyroidism in mRCC patients, helping to maximize the treatment outcome of mRCC patients.

Adjuvant treatment with VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor in renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy has been reported through four clinical trials: S-TRAC, ASSURE, PROTECT and ATLAS. Only S-TRAC has been significantly positive on primary endpoint DFS under sunitinib compared to placebo, whereas ASSURE, PROTECT and ATLAS did not show any gain under sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib or axitinib, respectively. Nevertheless, there are arguments for a trend for the impact of anti-angiogenic therapy on outcome of patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma cancer following nephrectomy, allowing for a fair discussion with patients to decide for or against an adjuvant treatment.

The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated efficacy data from the second interim analysis.Treatment-naive patients with aRCC were randomized (1 : 1) to receive avelumab (10 mg/kg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were PFS and overall survival (OS) among patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) tumors. Key secondary end points were OS and PFS in the overall population.Of 886 patients, 442 were randomized to the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 444 to the sunitinib arm; 270 and 290 had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months (data cut-off 28 January 2019), PFS was significantly longer in the avelumab plus axitinib arm than in the sunitinib arm {PD-L1+ population: hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.490-0.777]}; one-sided P0.0001; median 13.8 (95% CI 10.1-20.7) versus 7.0 months (95% CI 5.7-9.6); overall population: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.574-0.825); one-sided P0.0001; median 13.3 (95% CI 11.1-15.3) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 6.7-9.8)]. OS data were immature [PD-L1+ population: HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.596-1.151); one-sided P = 0.1301; overall population: HR 0.796 (95% CI 0.616-1.027); one-sided P = 0.0392].Among patients with previously untreated aRCC, treatment with avelumab plus axitinib continued to result in a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus sunitinib; OS data were still immature.NCT02684006.

Over the last 18 months, 3 immunotherapy combination regimens (ipilimumab + nivolumab, pembrolizumab + axitinib, and axitinib + avelumab) were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), making selection of the optimal first-line treatment regimen very challenging. As of April 2020, preferred first-line treatment options for mRCC are pembrolizumab + axitinib and ipilimumab + nivolumab, based on the improvement in overall survival and progression-free survival compared to sunitinib, as observed in pivotal phase III clinical trials. Because the combination of 2 drugs is typically more toxic than a monotherapy, careful attention must be given to overlapping toxicities. The pembrolizumab + axitinib combination led to grade ≥3 adverse events in 75.8% of patients (vs 70.6% in the sunitinib group), while grade ≥3 adverse events were less frequent in the nivolumab + ipilimumab group compared to the sunitinib group. Discontinuation rates due to toxicity were 10.7% for pembrolizumab + axitinib (both drugs), 22% for ipilimumab + nivolumab and were comparable with sunitinib in both studies (13.9% and 12%, respectively). The combination of pembrolizumab + axitinib may have immune-modulating functions that may provide clinical benefit without the additional toxicity observed with ipilimumab + nivolumab. In addition, this tyrosine kinase inhibitor + immune checkpoint combination should have faster treatment response in patients with larger disease burden or in more symptomatic patients, which makes this combination an excellent choice for the first-line treatment regimen for mRCC. These combinations have proven to be tolerable, though long-term results are still lacking. As treatment options for mRCC are rapidly expanding, immunotherapy combinations could potentially change the treatment paradigm, with the ultimate goal of prolonging life and eventually curing mRCC.

In an era of several therapeutic options available, optimal treatment sequencing is crucial to providing patients the most effective therapy and promoting quality of life. In clear cell renal cell carcinoma, a combination approach with an immunotherapy backbone, such as nivolumab/ipilimumab or axitinib/pembrolizumab, has a key role in the first-line setting. Safety and activity data support the transition to single-agent targeted therapies in the second-line setting. Nivolumab monotherapy possesses clinical and mechanistic rationale as a second-line therapeutic option for patients treated with targeted therapies in the first-line setting. Gene expression models are being generated from large prospective clinical trial data sets.

Purpose Management of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) has undergone a paradigm shift with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the first-line setting. However, direct comparative data are inadequate to inform treatment decisions. Therefore, we aimed to assess first-line therapy for mRCC and indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments. Materials and methods Multiple databases were searched for articles published before June 2020. Studies that compared overall and/or progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in mRCC patients were considered eligible. Results Six studies matched our eligibility criteria. For OS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.73–0.98] and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.75–0.99) were significantly more effective than sunitinib, and pembrolizumab plus axitinib was probably the best option based on analysis of the treatment ranking. For PFS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.76–0.97) and avelumab plus axitinib (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.74–0.98) were statistically superior to sunitinib, and avelumab plus axitinib was likely to be the preferred option based on analysis of the treatment ranking, closely followed by pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had significantly lower rates of serious AEs than sunitinib. Conclusion Pembrolizumab plus axitinib seemed to be the most efficacious first-line agents, while nivolumab plus ipilimumab had the most favorable efficacy–tolerability equilibrium. These findings may facilitate individualized treatment strategies and inform future direct comparative trials in an expanding treatment options without direct comparison between approved drugs.