Search

Background: Despite advances in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), there is an unmet need for options to address disease progression during or after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib are active as monotherapies in RCC; thus, we aimed to evaluate the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in these patients., Methods: We report results of the metastatic RCC cohort from an open-label phase 1b/2 study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients aged at least 18 years with selected solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Oral lenvatinib at 20 mg was given once daily along with intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg once every 3 weeks. Patients remained on study drug treatment until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Efficacy was analysed in patients with clear cell metastatic RCC receiving study drug by previous therapy grouping: treatment naive, previously treated ICI naive (previously treated with at least one line of therapy but not with an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 ICI), and ICI pretreated (ie, anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1) patients. Safety was analysed in all enrolled and treated patients. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate at week 24 per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (irRECIST) by investigator assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02501096) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT2017-000300-26), and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between July 21, 2015, and Oct 16, 2019, 145 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients had non-clear cell RCC and were excluded from the efficacy analysis (one in the treatment-naive group and one in the ICI-pretreated group); thus, the population evaluated for efficacy comprised 143 patients (n=22 in the treatment-naive group, n=17 in the previously treated ICI-naive group, and n=104 in the ICI-pretreated group). All 145 enrolled patients were included in the safety analysis. The median follow-up was 19·8 months (IQR 14·3-28·4). The number of patients with an objective response at week 24 by irRECIST was 16 (72·7%, 95% CI 49·8-89·3) of 22 treatment-naive patients, seven (41·2%, 18·4-67·1) of 17 previously treated ICI-naive patients, and 58 (55·8%, 45·7-65·5) of 104 ICI-pretreated patients. Of 145 patients, 82 (57%) had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events and ten (7%) had grade 4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (30 [21%] of 145 patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 36 (25%) patients, and there were three treatment-related deaths (upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sudden death, and pneumonia)., Interpretation: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed encouraging antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile and might be an option for post-ICI treatment of metastatic RCC., Funding: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests C-HL received support for this Article from Eisai and Merck; grants or contracts to their institution from Eisai and Merck; consulting fees from Eisai and Merck; for attending meetings and travel from Eisai; and fees for participation in a scientific advisory committee for Merck; consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Pfizer, and EMD Serono; honoraria from AiCME, Intellisphere, and Research to Practice; research funds to the institute from Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Merck, and Pfizer. AYS participated on an advisory board for Eisai, Exelixis, Pfizer, and Roche; and received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, and EMD Serono. DR received support for this Article from Eisai. AR received grants or contracts to their institution from Eisai and Merck; consulting fees to their institution from Eli Lilly; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bayer, Cardinal Health, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi; and research funding to their institution from Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Pfizer/Astellas, and Seattle Genetics/Astellas. MHT received clinical research funding for the present work to their institution from Eisai; and honoraria for participation in advisory boards and speakers' bureaus from Eisai. JJH received grants or contracts from Merck; consulting fees from BostonGene and Eisai; support for attending meetings or travel, or both from Elsevier; and stock or stock options from BostonGene. AP received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Pfizer; and support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer. RGS received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Roche; support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from MSD-Merck and Pfizer; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Bristol Myers Squibb. ALC received consulting fees from Amgen; and payment for expert testimony from the Department of Justice. NJV received support for this Article, including provision of study patients, payments to institution, medical writing, and manuscript writing charges from Eisai and Merck; consulting fees from Eisai and Merck; and payment for legal testimony from Merck. MAB received grants or contracts to their institution from Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis Company, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Genome & Company, Incyte, Nektar, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Tricon Pharmaceuticals, and Xencor; honoraria for participation in a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Eisai, Exelixis, Genomic Health, Janssen, Nektar, Pfizer, and Sanofi. ØKT received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astellas and Bristol Myers Squibb; and fees for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bayer. RFS received grants or contracts to their institution from AbbVie, Aduro, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CytomX, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Immunocore, Merck, Mirati, Moderna, Novartis, and QED therapeutics; consulting fees from Aduro, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Janssen, Mirati, Pfizer, Puma, and Seattle Genetics; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics; support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Mirati; and patents pending, PCT/US2020/031357 on neoantigens in cancer. DH received support for this Article to their institution from Eisai; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis Company, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Sanofi; and participation on an advisory board for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, and Roche; SJ has stock or stock options in Merck. EVS and RFP are employed by, and have stock or stock options in, Merck. JW and PK are employed by Eisai. CEO and ADS are employed by Eisai Europe. RJM received support for the present Article from Eisai and Merck; grants or contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, Incyte, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Bristol Myers Squibb. CDS, DRS, SGR, MG, DR, and JC declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In men with metastatic germ cell tumors (GCTs), risk-directed treatment is determined, in part, by a distinction between seminoma and nonseminomatous GCT (NSGCT). The importance of NSGCT cell type is uncertain. We evaluated the long-term impact of teratoma on survival in patients with NSGCT., Methods: Prechemotherapy, primary tumors from patients who received platinum-based chemotherapy were studied, and the histology was confirmed by a genitourinary pathologist. The cumulative incidence of disease-related death (CIDD) was the primary end point, and a competing-risk analysis was performed., Results: Tumors were available from 232 patients, including 193 with NSGCT. An element of teratoma was present in 82 NSGCT primary tumors (42%). With a median follow-up of 17 years (range, 0.3 to 35 years), 58 patients with NSGCT died, 47 as a result of GCT and 11 as a result of other causes. Most GCT deaths occurred within the first 5 years and were associated with pretreatment risk status ( P < .001). Death as a result of other causes rose steadily after 15 years and was not associated with risk status ( P = .66). A higher CIDD was observed in patients who had NSGCT with teratoma than those with NSGCT without teratoma and seminoma (5-year CIDD rate, 27.4%, 17.4%, and 10.3%, respectively; P = .03). A higher CIDD was observed in patients who had NSGCT with mature teratoma compared with those with either NSGCT with immature teratoma or NSGCT without teratoma (5-year CIDD rate, 38.1%, 19.9%, and 17.4%, respectively; P = .01)., Conclusion: The presence of teratoma, particularly mature teratoma, in an NSGCT primary tumor is associated with a higher CIDD, consistent with the hypothesis that differentiation is associated with adverse outcomes. Death as a result of non-GCT causes is not associated with risk status and must be separated from GCT death when evaluating long-term survival.

Background: Elderly patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may require special treatment considerations, particularly when comorbidities are present. An understanding of the efficacy and safety of targeted agents in elderly patients with mRCC is essential to provide individualized therapy., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of everolimus in elderly patients (those ≥ 65 and ≥ 70 yr of age) enrolled in RECORD-1., Design, Setting, and Participants: The multicenter randomized RECORD-1 phase 3 trial (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT00410124; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) enrolled patients with mRCC who progressed during or within 6 mo of stopping sunitinib and/or sorafenib treatment (n=416)., Intervention: Everolimus 10mg once daily (n=277) or placebo (n=139) plus best supportive care. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity., Measurements: Median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), and time to deterioration in Karnofsky performance status (TTD-KPS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method; the log-rank test was used to compare treatment arms. Other outcomes evaluated included reduction in tumor burden, overall response rate (ORR), and safety., Results and Limitations: In RECORD-1, 36.8% of patients were ≥ 65 yr and 17.5% were ≥ 70 yr of age. PFS, OS, TTD-KPS, reduction in tumor burden, and ORR were similar in the elderly and the overall RECORD-1 population. Everolimus was generally well tolerated in elderly patients, and most adverse events were grade 1 or 2 in severity. The toxicity profile of everolimus was generally similar in older patients and the overall population; however, peripheral edema, cough, rash, and diarrhea were reported more frequently in the elderly regardless of treatment. The retrospective nature of the analyses was the major limitation., Conclusions: Everolimus is effective and tolerable in elderly patients with mRCC. When selecting targeted therapies in these patients, the specific toxicity profile of each agent and any patient comorbidities should be considered., (Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

In the U.S. and Europe, clinical practice guidelines for metastatic renal cell carcinoma have undergone several revisions as a result of the introduction of molecular-targeted therapies. Recently, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Association of Urology (EAU) published updated guidelines to reflect these new treatment approaches that provide greater efficacy and better tolerability than the previous standard of care, cytokine therapy with interleukin-2 or interferon-α. Recommendations are classified by line of therapy, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center risk level for survival, and level of evidence. Although many similarities exist, levels of evidence between the NCCN and EAU guidelines have differing designations and definitions, and timing of updates varies. New research developments, such as identification of effective combinations of targeted agents, optimal regimens for sequential therapy, newly designed targeted agents, benefits in special populations, and identification of additional prognostic factors and biomarkers, will prompt continued updates and refinements of today's clinical practice guidelines, with the goal of providing physicians with the most up-to-date clinical consensus upon which to base treatment decisions. Because clinical trial populations may not represent real-life patient populations, recommendations should serve only as a guide and must be tailored to the needs of each patient.

Introduction: Modified template retroperitoneal lymph node dissections (RPLND) have become increasing applied in the postchemotherapy (PC) setting. We evaluated our experience with PC-RPLND to determine the incidence of disease extending outside the boundaries of a modified PC-RPLND., Patients and Methods: From 1989 through 2003, a total of 532 men underwent PC-RPLND for metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT). Of these, 269 (51%) had either viable germ cell tumor (GCT) or teratoma present in the RPLND specimen. After Institutional Review Board approval, clinical and pathologic data were obtained from our prospective surgical database. The incidence of retroperitoneal disease outside the boundaries of five modified templates was reported for the presence of viable GCT or teratoma., Results: Of the 269 patients with viable GCT or teratoma, 20 to 86 (7% to 32%) patients had evidence of extratemplate retroperitoneal disease, depending on the boundaries of the modified template. There was no difference in the histologic distribution for patients with disease confined to or outside of the modified templates. Despite the absence of preoperative radiographic evidence of disease outside the boundaries of the Testicular Tumor Study Group template, the incidence of extratemplate metastasis for men with residual retroperitoneal masses less than 1, 1 to 2, 2 to 5, and more than 5 cm was two of 24 (8%), seven of 38 (18%), 27 of 92 (29%), and 14 of 55 (25%), respectively., Conclusion: Our data suggest a bilateral RPLND is a prudent approach for the management of men with metastatic NSGCT after chemotherapy, given that at least 7% to 32% of men will have teratoma or viable GCT outside the boundaries of a modified template.

Purpose: To determine the incidence, pattern, and predictive factors for relapse in patients with low-volume nodal metastases (stage pN1) at retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (RPLND) and identify who may benefit from chemotherapy in the adjuvant or primary setting., Patients and Methods: Fifty-four patients with testicular nonseminomatous germ cell tumor had low-volume retroperitoneal metastases (pathologic stage pN1, 1997 tumor-node-metastasis classification) resected at RPLND, 50 of whom were managed expectantly without adjuvant chemotherapy. The dissection was bilateral in 12 and was a modified template in 38 patients. Retroperitoneal metastases were limited to microscopic nodal involvement in 14 patients. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 106 months (median, 31.4 months)., Results: Eleven patients (22%) suffered a relapse at a median follow-up of 1.8 months (range, 0.6 to 28 months). The most frequent form of recurrence was marker elevation in nine (18%) patients. Persistent marker elevation after orchiectomy and before retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy was a significant independent predictor of relapse (relative risk, 8.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 27.8; P =.001). Four of five (80%) patients with elevated markers (alpha-fetoprotein alone in three, alpha-fetoprotein and beta human chorionic gonadotropin in one) suffered a relapse, compared with seven of 45 (15.6%) patients with normal markers., Conclusion: Clinical stage I and IIA patients with normal markers who have low-volume nodal metastases have a low incidence of relapse and can be managed by observation only if compliance can be assured. In contrast, patients with elevated markers before retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy have a high rate of relapse and should be considered for primary chemotherapy.