Search

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.

Summary Background PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors are active in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but positive randomised data supporting their use as a first-line treatment are lacking. In this study we assessed outcomes with first-line pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. Methods KEYNOTE-361 is a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients aged at least 18 years, with untreated, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of up to 2. Eligible patients were enrolled from 201 medical centres in 21 countries and randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a maximum of 35 cycles plus intravenous chemotherapy (gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2] on days 1 and 8 and investigator's choice of cisplatin [70 mg/m2] or carboplatin [area under the curve 5] on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) for a maximum of six cycles, pembrolizumab alone, or chemotherapy alone, stratified by choice of platinum therapy and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to the treatment assignment or CPS. At protocol-specified final analysis, sequential hypothesis testing began with superiority of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the total population (all patients randomly allocated to a treatment) for the dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (p value boundary 0·0019), assessed by masked, independent central review, and overall survival (p value boundary 0·0142), followed by non-inferiority and superiority of overall survival for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the patient population with CPS of at least 10 and in the total population (also a primary endpoint). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). This study is completed and is no longer enrolling patients, and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02853305 . Findings Between Oct 19, 2016 and June 29, 2018, 1010 patients were enrolled and allocated to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n=351), pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=307), or chemotherapy alone (n=352). Median follow-up was 31·7 months (IQR 27·7–36·0). Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy did not significantly improve progression-free survival, with a median progression-free survival of 8·3 months (95% CI 7·5–8·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 7·1 months (6·4–7·9) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·65–0·93; p=0·0033), or overall survival, with a median overall survival of 17·0 months (14·5–19·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·3 months (12·3–16·7) in the chemotherapy group (0·86, 0·72–1·02; p=0·0407). No further formal statistical hypothesis testing was done. In analyses of overall survival with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (now exploratory based on hierarchical statistical testing), overall survival was similar between these treatment groups, both in the total population (15·6 months [95% CI 12·1–17·9] with pembrolizumab vs 14·3 months [12·3–16·7] with chemotherapy; HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·77–1·11) and the population with CPS of at least 10 (16·1 months [13·6–19·9] with pembrolizumab vs 15·2 months [11·6–23·3] with chemotherapy; 1·01, 0·77–1·32). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event attributed to study treatment was anaemia with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients) or chemotherapy alone (112 [33%] of 342 patients), and diarrhoea, fatigue, and hyponatraemia (each affecting four [1%] of 302 patients) with pembrolizumab alone. Six (1%) of 1010 patients died due to an adverse event attributed to study treatment; two patients in each treatment group. One each occurred due to cardiac arrest and device-related sepsis in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group, one each due to cardiac failure and malignant neoplasm progression in the pembrolizumab group, and one each due to myocardial infarction and ischaemic colitis in the chemotherapy group. Interpretation The addition of pembrolizumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not significantly improve efficacy and should not be widely adopted for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Funding Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

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.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.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; P0.001). 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 (P0.001). 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.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.).

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.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant treatment in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery is not clear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery to receive, in a 1:1 ratio, either nivolumab (240 mg intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy before trial entry was allowed. The primary end points were disease-free survival among all the patients (intention-to-treat population) and among patients with a tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level of 1% or more. Survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 353 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab and 356 to receive placebo. The median disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5 to 27.6) with nivolumab and 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.9) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and disease-free at 6 months was 74.9% with nivolumab and 60.3% with placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.70; 98.22% CI, 0.55 to 0.90; P

We present an exploratory post hoc analysis from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in a subgroup of 108 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, a population under-represented in clinical trials. Patients with clear cell aRCC were randomized to NIVO+IPI every 3 wk for four doses followed by NIVO monotherapy, or sunitinib every day for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and primary tumor shrinkage were assessed. PFS and ORR were assessed per independent radiology review committee using RECIST version 1.1. With minimum study follow-up of 4 yr for intent-to-treat patients, OS favored NIVO+IPI (n = 53) over sunitinib (n = 55; hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.40–1.0) among patients without prior nephrectomy. ORR was higher (34% vs 15%; p = 0.0041) and median duration of response was longer with NIVO+IPI versus sunitinib (20.5 vs 14.1 mo); the best overall response was partial response in either arm. A ≥30% reduction in the diameter of intact target renal tumors was achieved in 35% of patients with NIVO+IPI versus 20% with sunitinib. Safety was consistent with the global study population. In conclusion, in patients with aRCC without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, NIVO+IPI showed survival benefits and renal tumor reduction versus sunitinib. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02231749. Patient summary: In an exploratory analysis of a large global trial (CheckMate 214), we observed positive outcomes (both survival and tumor response to treatment) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in a subgroup of patients with advanced kidney cancer who did not undergo removal of their primary kidney tumor. This subset of patients represents a population that has not been studied in clinical trials and for whom outcomes with new immunotherapy combination regimens are not yet known. We conclude that treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab offers these patients a survival benefit versus sunitinib, consistent with that observed in the overall study, as well as a notable kidney tumor reduction.

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib, through a bridging study to METEOR, in Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who had progressed after prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Methods This phase II, open-label, single-arm study (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT03339219) included adult Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and measurable disease who had received one or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Patients received cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily while there was clinical benefit, or until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end-point was objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1. Secondary end-points included clinical benefit rate (complete or partial response, or ≥8-week stable disease), progression-free survival, overall survival and safety. Results Of the 35 patients enrolled, 68.6%, 22.9% and 8.6% had previously received one, two and three prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors, respectively. The median duration of cabozantinib exposure was 27.0 weeks (range 5.1-43.0 weeks). The objective response rate was 20.0% (90% confidence interval 9.8-34.3%), and the clinical benefit rate was 85.7% (95% confidence interval 69.7-95.2%). The 6-month estimated progression-free survival was 72.3% (95% confidence interval 53.3-84.6%); the median progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached. All patients reported adverse events, which were manageable by supportive treatment or dose modification; two patients (5.7%) discontinued therapy due to adverse events. Conclusions The results showed that findings from METEOR can be extrapolated, and that cabozantinib 60 mg/day is a viable treatment option in Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who had progressed after prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

Background: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. Methods: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Results: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P

The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial of avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib in patients with treatment‐naive advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) demonstrated significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) and higher objective response rate (ORR) with the combination vs sunitinib. Japanese patients enrolled in the study (N = 67) were randomized to receive avelumab + axitinib (N = 33) or sunitinib (N = 34); 67% vs 59% had PD‐L1+ tumors (≥1% of immune cells) and 6%/64%/27% vs 6%/82%/12% had International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable/intermediate/poor risk status. In patients who received avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib, median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was not estimable (8.1 months, not estimable) vs 11.2 months (1.6 months, not estimable) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.152, 1.563) in patients with PD‐L1+ tumors and 16.6 months (8.1 months, not estimable) vs 11.2 months (4.2 months, not estimable) (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.296, 1.464) in patients irrespective of PD‐L1 expression. Median overall survival (OS) has not been reached in either arm in patients with PD‐L1+ tumors and irrespective of PD‐L1 expression. ORR (95% CI) was 60.6% (42.1%, 77.1%) vs 17.6% (6.8%, 34.5%) in patients irrespective of PD‐L1 expression. Common treatment‐emergent adverse events (all grade; grade ≥3) in each arm were hand‐foot syndrome (64%; 9% vs 71%; 9%), hypertension (55%; 30% vs 44%; 18%), hypothyroidism (55%; 0% vs 24%; 0%), dysgeusia (21%; 0% vs 56%; 0%) and platelet count decreased (3%; 0% vs 65%; 32%). Avelumab + axitinib was efficacious and tolerable in treatment‐naive Japanese patients with advanced RCC, which is consistent with results in the overall population., The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial of avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib in patients with treatment‐naive advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) demonstrated significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) and higher objective response rate (ORR) with the combination vs sunitinib. In Japanese patients who received avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib, median PFS (95% CI) was not estimable (8.1 months, not estimable) vs 11.2 months (1.6 months, not estimable) (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.152, 1.563) in patients with PD‐L1+ tumors and 16.6 months (8.1 months, not estimable) vs 11.2 months (4.2 months, not estimable) (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.296, 1.464) in patients irrespective of PD‐L1 expression. Avelumab + axitinib was efficacious and tolerable in treatment‐naive Japanese patients with advanced RCC, which is consistent with results in the overall population.

Background Ramucirumab-an IgG1 vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antagonistplus docetaxel was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in platinum-refractory, advanced urothelial carcinoma. Here, we report the secondary endpoint of overall survival results for the RANGE trial.Methods We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 124 investigative sites (hospitals, clinics, and academic centres) in 23 countries. Previous treatment with one immune checkpoint inhibitor was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive intravenous ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or placebo 10 mg/kg volume equivalent followed by intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 (60 mg/m 2 in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline, and visceral metastasis. Progression-free survival (the primary endpoint) and overall survival (a key secondary endpoint) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02426125; patient enrolment is complete and the last patient on treatment is being followed up for safety issues.Findings Between July 20, 2015, and April 4, 2017, 530 patients were randomly allocated to ramucirumab plus docetaxel (n=263) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=267) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. At database lock (March 21, 2018) for the final overall survival analysis, median follow-up was 7.4 months (IQR 3.5-13.9). In our sensitivity analysis of investigator-assessed progression-free survival at the overall survival database lock, median progression-free survival remained significantly improved with ramucirumab compared with placebo (4.1 months [95% CI 3.3-4.8] vs 2.8 months [2.6-2.9]; HR 0.696 [95% CI 0.573-0.845]; p=0.0002). Median overall survival was 9.4 months (95% CI 7.9-11.4) in the ramucirumab group versus 7.9 months (7.0-9.3) in the placebo group (stratified HR 0.887 [95% CI 0.724-1.086]; p=0.25). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in 5% or more of patients and with an incidence more than 2% higher with ramucirumab than with placebo were febrile neutropenia (24 [9%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 16 [6%] of 265 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (17 [7%] of 258 vs six [2%] of 265). Serious adverse events were similar between groups (112 [43%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 107 [40%] of 265 patients in the placebo group). Adverse events related to study treatment and leading to death occurred in eight (3%) patients in the ramucirumab group versus five (2%) patients in the placebo group.Interpretation Additional follow-up supports that ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improves progression-free survival, without a significant improvement in overall survival, for patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. Clinically meaningful benefit might be restricted in an unselected population. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction: We aimed to assess the outcome of free tube graft urethroplasty for single-stage repair of hypospadias with chordee in children. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a series of 56 patients (16 months to 9 years old, median 24 months) who underwent free graft urethroplasty for repair of hypospadias with chordee between May 2005 and November 2017. The median follow-up was 7 years (range 1–11). Results: After releasing the chordee, the hypospadiac orifice was retracted to become penile in 32 patients (57%), penoscrotal in 18 patients (32%), and scrotal in 6 patients (11%). Single-stage repair was achieved without complications in 42 patients (75%). Of the remaining 14 patients with postoperative complications requiring surgical intervention, 2 had meatal stenosis, 9 had urethrocutaneous fistula, 1 had urethral diverticulum without meatal stenosis, and 1 had meatal regression. One patient who complained the urine stream went upwards in an arc underwent cutback meatoplasty to correct the stream. In all patients, a neomeatus with a vertically oriented slit-like appearance was eventually achieved at the tip of the glans. Conclusion: A free graft is an appropriate choice for repairing hypospadias with chordee. Our procedure achieved favorable functional and cosmetic outcomes with a low postoperative morbidity rate.

(Background) It has become evident in recent year that aldosterone has a pathogenic role in hypertension, heart failure and renal disease. Elevation of aldosterone occurs in a certain fraction of hemodialysis patients, and the adverse effects of hyperaldosteronism could pose a problem after kidney transplantation. Long-term effects of aldosterone level in renal transplant recipients remain unknown. (Materials and methods) All recipients underwent transplantation between 1996 and 2018 in Niigata university hospital were included in the study. Plasma renin activity (PRA) and plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) were retrospectively analyzed in 210 recipients before and after kidney transplantation. (Results) Sixty percent of recipients had higher PRA than normal upper limit before and after transplantation. The use of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) or angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) was significantly more frequent in the patients with hyperreninemia than those without one after transplantation. Sixty percent of recipients had higher PAC than normal upper limit before transplantation and it spontaneously decreased to normal level after transplantation in most of them. There was no significant correlation between PAC and blood pressure, recipient age, and renal graft function after transplantation. We divided the patients into two groups, with and without post-transplant hyperaldosteronemia. The patients with post-transplant hyperaldosteronemia (n=29) had higher diastolic blood pressure and less use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors than those with normal PAC level. (Conclusions) The use of RAAS inhibitors should be considered in post-transplant hyperaldosteronemia patients to control blood pressure and to save their long-term renal graft and heart function.

Purpose: Patients discontinuing immuno-oncology regimens may experience periods of disease control without need for ongoing anticancer therapy, but toxicity may persist. We describe treatment-free survival (TFS), with and without toxicity. Patients and Methods: Data were analyzed from the randomized phase III CheckMate 214 trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 550) versus sunitinib (n = 546) for treatment-naïve, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). TFS was estimated by the 42-month restricted mean times defined by the area between Kaplan–Meier curves for two time-to-event endpoints defined from randomization: time to protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. TFS was subdivided as TFS with and without toxicity by counting days with ≥1 grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). Results: At 42 months since randomization, 52% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 39% of sunitinib intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive; 18% and 5% surviving treatment-free, respectively. Among favorable-risk patients, 70% and 73% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and sunitinib patients were alive; 20% and 9% treatment-free. Over the 42-month period, mean TFS was over twice as long after nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk (6.9 vs. 3.1 months) and three times as long for favorable-risk patients (11.0 vs. 3.7 months). Mean TFS with grade ≥3 TRAEs was a small proportion of time for both treatments (0.6 vs. 0.3 months after nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk, and 0.9 vs. 0.3 months for favorable-risk patients). Conclusions: Patients initiating first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for aRCC spent more survival time treatment-free without toxicity versus those on sunitinib, regardless of risk group.

Background In the phase III open-label KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study, first-line pembrolizumab and axitinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). KEYNOTE-426 evaluated patients enrolled from 25 sites in Japan. Methods Patients enrolled in Japan were included in this post hoc subgroup analysis. Adults with clear cell mRCC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily or oral sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Objective response rate (ORR) and safety were secondary endpoints. Results The Japanese subgroup comprised 94 patients (pembrolizumab–axitinib, n = 44; sunitinib, n = 50; 11% of the intent-to-treat population). Median time from randomization to data cutoff (January 6, 2020) was 29.5 months (range 24.6–37.3). Consistent with the intent-to-treat population, the OS, PFS, and ORR suggested improvement with pembrolizumab–axitinib versus sunitinib in the Japanese subgroup. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 70% of patients receiving pembrolizumab–axitinib versus 78% receiving sunitinib; 11 (25%) patients receiving pembrolizumab–axitinib and 13 (27%) patients receiving sunitinib discontinued the study medication due to AEs. TRAEs led to the discontinuation of pembrolizumab, axitinib, pembrolizumab–axitinib, or sunitinib in 32%, 34%, 14%, and 20%, respectively. No deaths from TRAEs occurred. Conclusions Efficacy outcomes for the Japanese subgroup were consistent with those of the global population. Safety in Japanese patients was consistent with the results from the global population.

Background Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) demonstrated superior efficacy over sunitinib (SUN) for previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in CheckMate 214, with a manageable safety profile. We report efficacy and safety with extended follow-up amongst Japanese patients. Methods CheckMate 214 patients received NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, then NIVO (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). This subgroup analysis assessed overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate/poor-risk and intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and safety (ITT patients). Results Of 550 and 546 patients randomized to NIVO+IPI and SUN, 38 and 34, respectively, were Japanese. Of these, 31 (NIVO+IPI) and 29 (SUN) patients were IMDC intermediate/poor-risk. In IMDC intermediate/poor-risk patients with 30 months’ minimum follow-up, there was a delayed trend in OS benefit with NIVO+IPI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19–1.59; P = 0.2670), and 24-month OS probability favoured NIVO+IPI (84%) versus SUN (76%). The ORR was 39% with NIVO+IPI and 31% with SUN (P = 0.6968). PFS was similar in both treatment arms (HR 1.17; 95% CI: 0.62–2.20; P = 0.6220). Efficacy in ITT patients was similar to IMDC intermediate/poor-risk patients. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse event incidence was lower with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (58 versus 91%). Conclusions Japanese patients with untreated aRCC in the NIVO+IPI arm had a numerically higher ORR and improved safety profile versus patients in the SUN arm. A delayed OS benefit appears to be emerging with NIVO+IPI. Longer follow-up is needed. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749?term=NCT02231749&rank=1 identifier: NCT02231749., IMDC intermediate/poor-risk aRCC Japanese patients treated with NIVO+IPI had a numerically higher ORR and an improved safety profile versus patients treated with SUN, with a delayed trend in OS benefit. Similar results were observed in ITT patients.

OBJECTIVES To analyze the prevalence of systemic de novo thrombotic microangiopathy in ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation and risk factors associated with this condition. METHODS A total of 201 patients who received living-donor kidney transplantation (114 patients with ABO-identical kidney transplantation and 87 patients with ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation) were retrospectively analyzed. Systemic de novo thrombotic microangiopathy was diagnosed clinically according to the presence of thrombocytopenia with microangiopathic hemolytic anemia and pathological findings of thrombotic microangiopathy. Anti-A and anti-B antibodies were purified from human plasma, and these antibodies' bindings to human kidney were investigated in vitro. RESULTS ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation was a significant risk factor of systemic de novo thrombotic microangiopathy (odds ratio 55.9, 95% CI 1.8-8.9, P

Plasma cell-rich acute rejection (PCAR) and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR), for which a standard treatment has not yet been established, are associated with poor graft survival after kidney transplantation. Here, we report a case series of 3 Japanese patients diagnosed with PCAR accompanied by ABMR. Steroid pulse therapy and rabbit antithymocyte globulin, plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin, and rituximab therapies were sequentially performed in the first case. A graft biopsy after each treatment showed that plasma cell infiltration persisted. Five months after the initiation of rejection therapy, the patient was subjected to bortezomib therapy, which led to the partial elimination of plasma cells from the graft. However, the graft function gradually deteriorated, and hemodialysis treatment was warranted. In the other 2 cases, the patients received the same combination of therapy including bortezomib within a short period. Graft biopsies performed subsequently showed a marked decrease in the number of infiltrated plasma cells, and stabilization of renal graft function was achieved in both cases. Bortezomib, which targets plasma cells, is a potent drug that eliminates infiltrated plasma cells from the graft in PCAR. Thus, in addition to conventional therapy comprising plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin, and rituximab against ABMR, bortezomib may be necessary to administer without any delay to control PCAR.

(Background) The standard treatment for recurrent immunoglobulin A nephropathy (rIgAN) after kidney transplantation (KTx) has not been established. (Methods) The results of treatment consisting of tonsillectomy and steroid pulse therapy in 20 recipients who were diagnosed as rIgAN were retrospectively analyzed. (Results) The level of proteinuria significantly decreased from 0.84±0.81 g/day to 0.27±0.31 g/day after treatment (P=0.007). Microscopic hematuria disappeared or improved in 58.3% and 66.6% of recipients 6 and 12 months after treatment, respectively. Serum creatinine levels remained stable for 5 years by the treatment, except for 3 cases of graft loss. Sixteen recipients received renal graft biopsies before and after treatment. Mesangial IgA deposition were dramatically decreased in 7 recipients (43.75%). The degree of mesangial hypercellularity, endocapillary hypercellularity, and crescents formation improved in 3 (18.8%), 6 (37.5%), and 4 (25%) recipients after treatment. (Conclusion) Steroid pulse therapy combined with tonsillectomy may be clinically and histopathologically effective treatment for rIgAN after KTx.

Background Brachytherapy is one of the standard treatments for localized prostate cancer (CaP). However, the feasibility of brachytherapy for renal transplant recipients (RTRs) is still uncertain. Materials and methods Between August 2007 and March 2018, all patients who had undergone low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy or high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for clinically localized CaP at our institution were retrospectively identified (n = 394). Of these patients, 3 had a history of renal transplantation. We reviewed all available clinical data retrospectively. Results All of the RTRs received ABO-incompatible renal grafts from their spouses and had stable renal graft function before the diagnosis of CaP. The median age at diagnosis of CaP was 65 years (range, 60–67 years). The median time between transplantation and brachytherapy was 7 years (range, 4–10 years). In all of the patients, clinical stage was cT1cN0M0. Two patients received 125I LDR-brachytherapy (dose, 145 Gy) and 1 patient was treated by 192Ir HDR brachytherapy (dose, 19 Gy in 2 fractions) combined with external beam radiation therapy of 39 Gy in 13 fractions. The median follow-up period after brachytherapy was 44 months (range, 34–50 months). During the follow-up period, none of the patients developed disease progression including biochemical recurrence or clinically significant adverse events associated with radiation therapy. Conclusions LDR brachytherapy and HDR brachytherapy are safe and technically feasible in RTRs with CaP, and oncological outcomes in RTRs do not appear to be inferior to those of patients who did not receive renal transplant.

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

Background: The management of febrile urinary tract infection (fUTI) in patients with vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) is crucial to prevent renal scarring. Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) is the most widely used initial treatment for VUR. However, the optimal duration of CAP is still unclear. We aimed to clarify an appropriate patient population and the optimal timing to discontinue CAP. Methods: We reviewed the records of 247 patients with primary VUR between January 2000 and December 2015. Seventy-two patients who discontinued CAP despite persistent VUR were enrolled. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model was used in statistical analysis. Results: Following the discontinuation of CAP, fUTI developed in 25 patients after a median of 9 months (range 0–81). VUR resolved spontaneously in 9 out of 47 patients without recurrence during follow-up. Multivariate analysis showed bilateral VUR and duration of CAP of less than 1 year after the last fUTI were significant risk factors for recurrence. Conclusion: Among the risk factors examined, patients administered CAP for less than 1 year after the last fUTI and those with bilateral VUR had significantly more frequent recurrence. Our study suggests that the administration of CAP for more than 1 year after the last fUTI is beneficial in avoiding recurrent fUTI.

Background Standard treatments have not been established in metastatic papillary renal-cell carcinoma (PRCC). We aimed to investigate treatment outcomes in patients with mPRCC. Patients and Methods This study included 51 patients who were diagnosed with PRCC at 14 institutions. Pathologic slides were reviewed by pathologists. The associations between clinical factors and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Results Final pathologic diagnoses could be determined in 50 patients. Thirty-five tumors were diagnosed as PRCC (type 2 PRCC, 91.4%), and 15 were diagnosed as other histologic types. Targeted therapies (TTs) were provided to 25 mPRCC patients. Patients treated with TT survived significantly longer than those treated before the era of TT (median OS, 22.5 vs. 6.3 months; P = .0035). Median OS of patients who experienced stable disease for ≥ 9 months using single TT was 43.1 months. Patients treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) as first-line TT survived longer after TT initiation than those treated with an mTOR inhibitor (median, 22.4 vs. 11.7 months; P = .2684). Patients treated with TKIs in both first- and second-line settings had significantly better survival after TT initiation than those treated with a TKI in one therapy line and an mTOR inhibitor in the other (31.4 vs. 12.9 months, P = .0172). Patients treated with a TKI as second-line TT survived significantly longer after second-line TT initiation than did those treated with an mTOR inhibitor (16.2 vs. 7.4 months, P = .0016). Conclusion Prognoses of patients with mPRCC were improved by TT, and TKIs appeared to be the treatment of choice in both the first- and second-line settings.

313 Background: First-line NIVO+IPI demonstrates superior survival and response benefits in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients (pts) with aRCC after long-term follow-up in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Data are scarce on tumor relapse and patterns of disease progression with immuno-oncology agents in this setting. This exploratory analysis of CheckMate 214 characterizes patterns of progression with NIVO+IPI vs SUN with 4 years minimum follow-up. Methods: Pts with clear cell aRCC were randomized to NIVO+IPI Q3W×4 followed by NIVO monotherapy Q2W, or SUN QD×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Patterns of progression were characterized in ITT pts and analyzed post hoc using descriptive statistics. Progression patterns were defined by ≥ 20% target lesion growth (T), unequivocal progression of nontarget lesions (NT), and new lesion(s) (NL). Response and progression were assessed per independent radiology review committee via RECIST v1.1. Results: Radiographic progression (RP) was documented in 299/550 (54.4%) ITT pts with NIVO+IPI vs 289/546 (52.9%) with SUN. Among ITT pts with a confirmed response (objective response = 215/550 [39.1%, NIVO+IPI] vs 177/546 [32.4%, SUN]), 71/215 (33.0%) vs 84/177 (47.5%) pts experienced post-response RP with NIVO+IPI vs SUN; 8/59 (13.6%) vs 3/14 (21.4%) progressed after complete response, and 63/156 (40.4%) vs 81/163 (49.7%) progressed after partial response, respectively. The pattern of RP differed between arms (Table). With NIVO+IPI, 106/299 (35.5%) RPs resulted from NL only vs 74/289 (25.6%) with SUN, and this differential was more pronounced in pts with an initial confirmed response (36/71 [50.7%] vs 23/84 [27.4%]). Most NL-only RPs in initial responders occurred in a single organ (34/36 [94.4%] for NIVO+IPI; 20/23 [87.0%] for SUN) with the most common being lymph nodes (11/34 [32.4%]), brain (8/34 [23.5%]), and lung (5/34 [14.7%]) with NIVO+IPI, and lymph nodes (7/20 [35.0%]), brain (4/20 [20.0%]) and adrenal gland (3/20 [15.0%]) with SUN. Additional progression details, baseline characteristics, and key efficacy outcomes in progressors will be reported. Conclusions: Differential patterns of tumor relapse and disease progression were observed after long-term follow up of patients treated with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in CheckMate 214. NL-only progression occurred more often with NIVO+IPI vs SUN, in particular in the subset of pts who progressed post-response. These patterns may have therapeutic implications. Clinical trial information: NCT02231749 . [Table: see text]

BackgroundThe extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up.MethodsPatients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory.ResultsAmong ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55–0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62–0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61–0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77–1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46–0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%–12.8% vs 1.4%–5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports.ConclusionsNIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months’ minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response.Trial registration numberNCT02231749.

Purpose: The present study compared the efficacy of sunitinib and sorafenib as first-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mCC-RCC) with favorable or intermediate Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk. Patients and methods: Treatment-naive patients with mCC-RCC were randomized to receive open-label sunitinib followed by sorafenib (SU/SO) or sorafenib followed by sunitinib (SO/SU). The primary endpoint was first-line progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were total PFS and overall survival (OS). Results: Of the 124 patients enrolled at 39 institutions from February 2010 to July 2012, 120 were evaluated. The median first-line PFS duration was 8.7 and 7.0 months in the SU/SO and SO/SU groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.08). The total PFS and OS were not significantly different between the SU/SO and SO/SU groups (27.8 and 22.6 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.428-1.246; and 38.4 and 30.9 months; HR, 0.934; 95% CI, 0.588-1.485, respectively). The subgroup analysis revealed that the total PFS with SU/SO was superior to the total PFS with SO/SU in the patients with favorable MSKCC risk and those with < 5 metastatic sites). SO/SU was superior to SU/SO for patients without previous nephrectomy. Conclusions: No statistically significant differences were found in first-line PFS, total PFS, or OS between the 2 treatment arms (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01481870).

Objective To estimate the outcomes of high-dose-rate brachytherapy combined with hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients classified as very high risk by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Methods Between June 2009 and September 2015, 66 patients meeting the criteria for very high-risk disease received high-dose-rate brachytherapy (2 fractions of 9 Gy) as a boost of external beam radiotherapy (13 fractions of 3 Gy). Androgen deprivation therapy was administered for approximately 3 years. Biochemical failure was assessed using the Phoenix definition. Results The median follow-up period was 53 months from the completion of radiotherapy. The 5-year biochemical failure-free, distant metastasis-free, prostate cancer-specific and overall survival rates were 88.7, 89.2, 98.5 and 97.0%, respectively. The independent contribution of each component of the very high-risk criteria was assessed in multivariable models. Primary Gleason pattern 5 was associated with increased risks of biochemical failure (P = 0.017) and distant metastasis (P = 0.049), whereas clinical stage ≥T3b or >4 biopsy cores with Gleason score 8-10 had no significant impact on the two outcomes. Grade 3 genitourinary toxicities were observed in two (3.0%) patients, whereas no grade ≥3 gastrointestinal toxicities occurred. Conclusions The present study shows that this multimodal approach provides potentially excellent cancer control and acceptable associated morbidity for very high-risk disease. Patients with primary Gleason pattern 5 are at a higher risk of poor outcomes, indicating the need for more aggressive approaches in these cases.

(Backgrounds) The efficacy of bortezomib for chronic antibody mediated rejection (CAMR) after kidney transplantation is still obscure. (Materials and methods) CAMR were persisted in 5 recipients who were treated with plasma exchange, low dose of IVIG, steroid pulse therapy, and rituximab. 1.3 mg/m2 of bortezomib was administered on days 1, 4, 8, 11. Serum creatinine (sCr) levels, anti-HLA antibodies, and histology were analyzed. (Results) Stable sCr levels were obtained in 3 out of 5 recipients. No one lost renal graft function during follow-up periods. Anti-HLA class I antibodies were significantly decreased after bortezomib treatment, however anti-HLA class II antibodies were not changed. Histology showed no improvement at 6 months after bortezomib administration. Two recipients whose sCr levels increased during follow-up had already had interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IF/TA) in histology before bortezomib treatment. (Conclusions) The use of bortezomib after IF/TA could be detected in histology may not contribute to stabilize renal graft function in CAMR.

(Background) Long-term care is necessary for normal growth and development of pediatric recipients of kidney transplants. We report on our experience with pediatric kidney transplantation (KTx) during the past 19 years. (Methods) We retrospectively analyzed the data from 26 recipients who received KTx between 1996 and 2014 at Niigata University Hospital (one patient underwent two consecutive KTx during the designated period). All recipients were 16 years old or younger at the time of KTx. (Results) The graft survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years after transplantation were 96%, 96%, and 88%, respectively. Three recipients lost the renal graft function due to graft thrombosis, antibody mediated rejection and steroid resistant rejection. Drug non-adherence was associated with rejection episodes, which led to the increasing of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) level. In addition, renal graft function was related to the growth after KTx. Eighteen recipients graduated from high school during follow-up periods and 17 recipients obtained employment. (Conclusion) Interventions promoting adherence should be implemented among pediatric recipients and parents to optimize graft survival and growth after KTx. Successful KTx contributed the high rate of social participation and employment after pediatric KTx.

Caliceal diverticular calculi are rather fixed and they are rare to be delivered spontaneously. We experienced a case of spontaneous passage of left ureteral multiple calculi from caliceal diverticular calculi. A 65-year-old female suffered from left back pain and was referred to our hospital. She was found to have left ureteral multiple calculi and left caliceal diverticular calculi. After a month observation, all ureteral calculi were delivered spontaneously. Multiple ureteral calculi from caliceal diverticular calculi could be delivered spontaneously and conservative management may be an option for the treatment.

Introduction Interstitial cystitis is difficult to treat and may affect adolescents. Case presentation A 15-year-old girl presented with severe pain upon terminal micturition that persisted for approximately 2 hours. The pain had been present for more than 1 month. Cystoscopy revealed severe erosion throughout the trigone. Transurethral fulguration did not improve her symptoms. However, complete electric resection of the ulcer markedly reduced the symptom. After complete resection, pain on urination disappeared and she has had no pain without medication for 15 months. Conclusion Complete resection not fulguration of the ulcer is effective for interstitial cystitis in adolescent female patients.

Objectifs Dans la CheckMate 214, N + I etait superieur a S chez les pts de pronostic intermediaire/defavorable (IP) et chez les pts en ITT. Nous rapportons ici la survie, la reponse selon un comite de revue des examens radiologiques independant (IRRC) et la tolerance apres 4 ans minimum de suivi, et une analyse exploratoire post-hoc dans un sous-groupe de pts sans nephrectomie prealable presentant une lesion cible au niveau du rein. Methodes Les pts avec aRCC a cellules claires ont ete randomises selon un rapport 1 :1 avec N 3 mg/kg + I 1 mg/kg toutes les 3 semaines × 4 puis N 3 mg/kg toutes les 2 semaines vs S 50 mg par jour pendant 4 semaines, suivi d’une fenetre therapeutique de 2 semaines, par cycle. Criteres d’evaluation : survie globale (OS), taux de reponse objective (ORR) et survie sans progression (PFS) selon IRRC en utilisant les criteres RECIST v1.1 chez les patients IP (primaire), ITT (secondaire) et favorable (FAV ; exploratoire). Resultats Une OS superieure avec N + I vs S etait maintenue chez les pts IP (HR 0,65) et ITT (HR 0,69) ; la difference d’OS est restee non significative chez les pts FAV (HR 0,93 ; Tableau 1 ). L’ORR etait plus eleve, avec plus de patients toujours en reponse avec N + I vs S chez les pts IP (65 % vs 50 %) et ITT (65 % vs 52 %). Chez les pts FAV, l’ORR etait plus faible avec N + I vs S, mais davantage de reponses etaient en cours (65 % contre 56 %). Le taux de reponse complete (CR) etait plus eleve avec N + I v S quel que soit le groupe IMDC ( Tableau 1 ). La PFS etait conforme aux rapports precedents. L’incidence des EI lies au traitement de tout grade et de grade ≥ 3 est restee inchangee. Dans le sous-groupe exploratoire de patients non nephrectomises et avec une lesion cible au niveau renal, le HR de l’OS (0,63) etait coherent avec celles des pts I/P et ITT ; L’ORR etait plus eleve avec N + I vs S (34 % contre 15 %) sans CR dans les deux bras, et le HR de la PFS etait de 0,99 (Tableau 1 ; n = 53 contre 55). Une reduction des lesions renales cibles de ≥ 30 % s’est produite chez 35 % vs 20 % (N + I vs S) des pts. Conclusion Apres 4 ans de suivi, le benefice clinique (OS, ORR) etait maintenu avec N + I vs S chez les pts IP et ITT. Les reponses avec N + I etaient durables sans nouveau signal de toxicite. Un retrecissement des lesions renales a ete observe chez les pts non nephrectomises traites par N + I, et l’OS dans ce sous-groupe etait coherente avec celle la population globale de l’etude.

4548 Background: CRP is an important prognostic and predictive factor in patients with aRCC receiving various therapies, such as cytokines and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In this extended follow-up to the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006), we report the association of CRP levels at baseline (BL) and early after treatment with the efficacy of A + Ax or sunitinib (S). Methods: CRP levels were assessed at screening and day 1 of each 6-week cycle. Patients were categorized into CRP normal (BL CRP < 10 mg/L), normalized (BL CRP ≥10 mg/L and ≥1 CRP value decreased to < 10 mg/L during 6 weeks of treatment), and non-normalized (CRP ≥10 mg/L at BL and during 6 weeks of treatment) groups. Multivariate analysis of BL characteristics, including CRP for efficacy, was also conducted. Progression-free survival (PFS) and best overall response per independent central review (RECIST 1.1) from the second interim analysis (IA2) of overall survival (OS) and OS from the third interim analysis (IA3) were assessed. Results: Minimum duration of follow-up for IA2 and IA3 were 13 and 28 months, respectively. The table shows objective response rate (ORR), PFS, and OS by CRP group. Efficacy outcomes in the normal and normalized groups were favorable compared with the non-normalized group with both A + Ax and S. In the A + Ax arm, the complete response rate was 11.8% (normalized group), 3.8% (normal group), and 0.9% (non-normalized group). With A + Ax, the PFS in the normalized group was longer than in the normal group, but this was not observed with S. In each CRP group, all efficacy outcomes were favorable with A + Ax vs S. In the multivariate analysis, normalized or non-normalized CRP was an independent predictive factor of ORR or OS with A + Ax. Conclusions: Normal and normalized CRP levels were associated with improved A + Ax efficacy. A + Ax demonstrated favorable efficacy across CRP groups. OS in this study was immature; follow-up for the final analysis is ongoing. Further research in defining predictive value of CRP is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006. [Table: see text]

4549 Background: Baseline NER has been reported to be associated with outcomes of immuno-oncology based combination treatment in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report outcomes by baseline NER of patients with aRCC in the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial who received avelumab + axitinib (A + Ax) or sunitinib (S). Methods: We calculated the median NER (mNER) for patients in the A + Ax and the S arms at the data cutoff (April 20, 2020) for the 3rd interim analysis (IA3). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response (OR) by NER are reported. Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were also conducted. Results: At the IA3 cutoff date, the mNERs for the A + Ax arm (n = 383) and S arm (n = 396) were 29.2 and 27.0, respectively. OR, PFS and OS for both arms are summarized in the table below. Better observed treatment outcomes in OR (63.9% vs 55.2%) and median PFS (15.5 vs, 11.1 months) were observed for patients with a NER < median vs. NER ≥ median in the A + Ax arm, while there were not major differences in outcome based on NER in the S arm. The stratified hazard ratio (HR) for PFS in patients with a NER < median compared with those with a NER ≥ median in the A + Ax arm was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.630-1.035) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.728-1.181) in the S arm. Patients with a NER < median had improved OS compared with those with a NER ≥ median in the A + Ax arm (stratified HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.481-0.940) and the S arm (stratified HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.424-0.779). Multivariate analysis showed that a low NER was associated with longer PFS and OS by treating baseline NER as either a continuous variable or a binary variable (dichotomized by median). Conclusions: Baseline NER may be predictive of OR and PFS in aRCC patients treated with A + Ax, and prognostic for overall survival regardless of therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006. [Table: see text]

4514 Background: There are limited data on the outcomes of patients receiving second-line (2L) therapy following immunotherapies plus tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in the first-line (1L). We describe the outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) who had received 1L A + Ax in the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial and went on to receive subsequent Tx. Methods: At the cutoff date for the third interim analysis (April 28, 2020), patients who received 1L A + Ax (n = 442) and received any subsequent lines of Tx were assessed. We report the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival on next-line systemic therapy (PFS2) per type of Tx, and duration of 2L Tx. Results: Anticancer drug therapies were received by 204/442 patients following A + Ax Tx. Of patients who received a follow-up anticancer drug Tx, 163/204 received a single agent (SA), and 41/204 received a combination Tx (CT) regimen. The most common 2L SA was cabozantinib (60/163), and the most frequent 2L CT was everolimus + lenvatinib (12/41). OS, PFS2, and duration of treatment (DOT) for the various subgroups are summarized in the table below. Analyses on additional subgroups will also be presented. Conclusions: In patients with aRCC who received 2L CT following 1L treatment with A + Ax, long-term OS and PFS2 were observed. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006. [Table: see text]

Subgroup analyses of a randomized global phase II study of axitinib showed objective response rate of 66% and median progression‐free survival of 27.6 months in treatment‐naïve Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This analysis evaluated overall survival (OS) and safety in 44 Japanese patients and compared the results with 169 non‐Japanese patients. In addition, baseline characteristics for predictive factors that may influence OS in first‐line metastatic RCC were explored in all patients using a Cox proportional hazard model. With median follow‐up of 33 months, fewer than half (16 of 44) of the Japanese patients had died and median OS was not reached (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.8 months–not estimable), whereas 107 of 169 (63%) non‐Japanese patients had died and median OS was 33.9 months (95% CI, 28.9–42.7). Estimated 1‐year, 2‐year and 3‐year survival probability (95% CI) was 86.4% (76.2–96.5), 75.0% (62.2–87.8) and 68.2% (54.4–81.9), respectively, in Japanese patients, and was higher than that in non‐Japanese patients (75.1% [68.4–81.8], 62.1% [54.5–69.7] and 47.2% [39.3–55.1], respectively). The updated safety analysis did not reveal any new adverse events of concern among Japanese or non‐Japanese patients. The multivariate analysis identified that lower baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, lower baseline tumor burden, and longer time from histopathological diagnosis to treatment were significant positive predictors of OS. The current analysis confirmed the clinical activity of axitinib in treatment‐naïve Japanese patients with metastatic RCC, with an acceptable toxicity profile.

With >2 years of follow-up, Japanese patients from the international phase III CheckMate 025 study had a higher response rate with nivolumab versus everolimus and a favorable safety profile., Background Nivolumab improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the phase III CheckMate 025 study (minimum follow-up: 14 months). We report efficacy and safety in the global and Japanese populations (minimum follow-up: 26 months). Methods Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or everolimus 10-mg tablet orally once daily. Primary endpoint: OS, key secondary endpoints: ORR, progression-free survival and safety. Results Of 410 (nivolumab) and 411 (everolimus) patients, 37 (9%) and 26 (6%), respectively, were Japanese. Median OS for the global population was 26.0 months (nivolumab) and 19.7 months (everolimus; hazard ratio 0.73 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61–0.88]; P = 0.0006), with medians not reached for Japanese patients. ORR for the global population was 26% (nivolumab) versus 5% (everolimus; odds ratio 6.13; 95% CI: 3.77–9.95); ORR for Japanese patients: 43% versus 8% (odds ratio 9.14; 95% CI: 1.76–88.33). In Japanese patients, any-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 78% (Grade 3–4, 19%; most common, anemia [5%]) treated with nivolumab and 100% (Grade 3–4, 58%; most common, hypertriglyceridemia [12%]) treated with everolimus; the most common with nivolumab was diarrhea (19%) and with everolimus was stomatitis (77%). Quality of life was stable in the nivolumab arm. Conclusions With >2 years of follow-up, Japanese patients had a higher response rate with nivolumab versus everolimus that was more pronounced yet consistent with the global population, with median OS not reached, and a favorable safety profile.

We conducted a retrospective analysis of two clinical trials in treatment-naïve patients (n = 402) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with axitinib. Our objective was to compare duration of treatment (DT) and clinical outcome in patients who achieved DT18 months (longer DT) versus ≤18 months (shorter DT).DT, objective response rate (ORR), tumor shrinkage, and overall survival (OS) were summarized for patients with longer and shorter DT.Overall, 152 patients (37.8%) had longer DT and 250 (62.2%) had shorter DT (median, 34.7 vs. 6.5 months, respectively). ORR in all 402 patients with advanced RCC was 43.5%. ORR was 75% for longer DT versus 24.4% for shorter DT (p 0.0001). More patients with longer DT versus shorter DT had ≥10% tumor shrinkage at first scan (74.8% vs. 55.3%; p = 0.0001) and maximum on-study tumor shrinkage was greater in longer-DT versus shorter-DT group (-51.8% vs. -22.1%; p 0.0001). Median OS was 32.6 months in the overall population while in the patients with longer DT the median was not reached. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) grade ≥3 were more frequent in longer-DT versus shorter-DT and included hypertension (25.7% vs. 18.8%), diarrhea (15.1% vs. 4.4%), and weight decrease (11.2% vs. 3.2%); however, these AEs decreased over time in both groups. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, favorable hematology values, no bone or liver metastases, and baseline tumor burden below the overall median were associated with longer DT.Longer duration (18 months) of axitinib treatment was associated with increased frequency of early tumor shrinkage, greater magnitude of tumor shrinkage, and a favorable OS.

A shortage of donors poses a serious problem for organ transplantation around the world. In response, the concept of the expanded criteria donor (ECD) has been defined to include donors with traditionally less favorable characteristics. That definition has now been accepted and is being applied in kidney transplantation in the United States and Europe. However, the ECD has not yet been defined for deceased donor kidney transplantation in Japan.We analyzed data on graft survival and relevant risk factors in patients who received deceased donor kidney transplants through the East Japan Branch of the Japan Organ Transplant network (n = 1051). Recipients were divided into two groups: the standard-function group (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥20 mL/min/1.73 mThe 10-year survival rate was significantly lower in the poor-function group than in the standard-function group (85.5% vs 22.5%; P .0001). The two groups differed significantly in recipient and donor risk for graft failure. Recipient risk factors were length of time on dialysis before renal transplantation and incidence of acute rejection after transplantation. Donor risk factors were donor category (heart death), age, history of hypertension, presence of cerebrovascular disease, mean urine output, and donor creatinine level immediately before donor nephrectomy, total ischemic time, and warm ischemic time.Data from deceased donor transplantation should be analyzed in depth to determine which factors influence renal function after transplantation. In addition, ECD standards should be reconsidered for use in a Japanese context.

Introduction Adverse events with enzalutamide widely used for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer are of interest. Case presentation A 76-year-old man developed castration-resistant prostate cancer. He received 160 mg of enzalutamide daily. On the 13th day after treatment, severe thrombocytopenia was observed (platelet count: 1.9 × 104/μL). Normal coagulation and fibrinolytic systems suggested thrombocytopenia induced by enzalutamide. Enzalutamide was withdrawn immediately, and platelet count uneventfully recovered to 7.0 × 104/μL and 28.8 × 104/μL 9 and 30 days after discontinuation, respectively. He restarted enzalutamide therapy without thrombocytopenia recurrence. However, 81 days after restarting enzalutamide, he experienced a seizure. There were no significant findings from brain computed tomography, which suggested that the seizure was also an enzalutamide-associated adverse event. Conclusion Thrombocytopenia may occur early following enzalutamide therapy, and blood analysis within 2 weeks after treatment may facilitate its management. Enzalutamide-induced thrombocytopenia, complicated by seizure, has not been reported.

A 74-year-old Japanese man with a history of chronic hepatitis C and kidney transplant (KT) was administered pegylated-interferon plus ribavirin therapy. However, this therapy was ineffective. The patient was then hospitalized to receive ombitasvir (OBV) plus paritaprevir (PTV) plus ritonavir (r) antiviral combination therapy. He tested negative for the virus after 4 weeks, and completed 12 weeks of treatment. The patient ultimately achieved a sustained virological response after the 12 weeks of treatment. Cyclosporine (CyA) trough levels, during the OBV-PTV-r therapy, reached a peak within 5 days of initiating therapy, and increases in serum creatinine and total bilirubin were also observed. However, onset of irreversible nephropathy and hepatopathy were avoided by reducing the CyA dosage. The OBV-PTV-r therapy demonstrated a sufficient antiviral effect and could be safely administered postoperatively to patients having undergone KT. When a combination therapy with interferon-free, direct-acting antivirals is used in patients post-transplantation, consideration of drug-drug interactions with and monitoring CyA are of vital importance.