Nivolumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in France: interim results of the observational, real-world WITNESS study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved in Europe for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in patients resistant to prior antiangiogenic therapy. WITNESS is an ongoing, prospective, observational study designed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nivolumab in patients with aRCC treated in real life (or routine practice) in France (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03455452). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study includes adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of aRCC who have initiated nivolumab after 1-2 prior lines of antiangiogenic therapy. Endpoints include overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of treatment (DOT), duration of response (DOR), overall response rate (ORR), subgroup analyses, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Results after a median follow-up of 12.3 months are presented here. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients with aRCC were included, of whom 38.2% had a Karnofsky score <80, 77.8% received nivolumab as second-line therapy, and 69.5% had undergone a previous nephrectomy. In the overall population, median OS was 20.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.6-25.0] months and median PFS was 5.2 (95% CI 4.5-5.9) months. ORR was 34.5%, median DOT was 3.8 months, and median DOR was 16.5 months. Nivolumab was effective in different subgroups including patients with bone or glandular metastases and those receiving baseline corticosteroids. Moreover, effectiveness was observed irrespective of prior nephrectomy and line of treatment. No new safety signals were identified; TRAEs of any grade were reported in 32.0% of patients, grade ≥3 and serious TRAEs in 11.1% each, and TRAEs leading to discontinuation in 8.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results of the ongoing WITNESS study confirm the real-world effectiveness and safety of nivolumab monotherapy in previously treated patients with aRCC. Treatment benefits were similar to those observed in the pivotal phase III CheckMate 025 randomized clinical trial, despite a broader, real-life study population.

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up from the phase III randomised CheckMate 9ER trial.

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

Association of cabozantinib pharmacokinetics, progression and toxicity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: results from a pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with a substantial efficacy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and is associated with a challenging toxicity profile leading to frequent drug discontinuations. Whereas an exposure/safety relationship was demonstrated for this drug, an exposure/efficacy relationship is still unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a monocentric, observational, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) study in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (INDS MR 5612140520). We used measured blood concentrations of cabozantinib (Cmeas) to determine the area under the curve (AUC), apparent clearance (Cl/F) and residual blood concentration (Ctrough). Best overall response according to RECIST 1.1 and relevant toxicity (adverse event grade 3-4 or grade 2 requiring dose reduction or discontinuation) were assessed according to Cmeas, Ctrough, AUC and Cl/F. RESULTS: We enrolled 76 patients, including 35 who experienced disease progression and 30 with grade 3-4 toxicity. Patients with progressive disease had a significantly lower median Ctrough (406 versus 634 ng/ml, P = 0.001), Cl/F (2 versus 2.9 l/h, P = 0.002) and AUC (16 versus 20 µg h/ml, P = 0.037) compared with patients who had disease control as best response. Patients with relevant toxicity had a significantly higher Cmeas (732 versus 531 ng/ml, P = 0.006), Ctrough (693 versus 521 ng/ml, P = 0.005) and AUC (21 versus 16 µg h/ml, P = 0.046) compared with patients who did not experience any grade relevant toxicity. Receiver operating characteristic curves obtained from our study defined a threshold for drug efficacy of 536.8 ng/ml and of 617.7 ng/ml for toxicity. CONCLUSION: We first demonstrate the PK/PD relationship for cabozantinib. Severe toxicities are associated with a higher drug exposure, whereas inefficacy is associated with a lower drug exposure. Cabozantinib plasma drug monitoring may be useful to optimize clinical practice.

Checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma (pRCC) is the most common non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) and a distinct entity, although heterogenous, associated with poor outcomes. The treatment landscape of metastatic pRCC (mpRCC) relied so far on targeted therapies, mimicking previous developments in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. However, antiangiogenics as well as mTOR inhibitors retain only limited activity in mpRCC. As development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is now underway in patients with mpRCC, we aimed at discussing early activity data and potential for future therapeutic strategies in monotherapy or combination. Expression of immune checkpoints such as PD-L1 and infiltrative immune cells in pRCC could provide insights into their potential immunogenicity, although this is currently poorly described. Based on retrospective and prospective data, efficacy of ICI as single agent remains limited. Combinations with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, notably with anti-MET inhibitors, harbor promising response rates and may enter the standard of care in untreated patients. Collaborative work is needed to refine the molecular and immune landscape of pRCC, and pursue efforts to set up predictive biomarker-driven clinical trials in these rare tumors.

First-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a decision-making analysis among experts.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) has been transformed by targeted therapies with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and more recently by the incorporation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Today, a spectrum of single agent TKI to TKI/ICI and ICI/ICI combinations can be considered and the choice of the best regimen is complex. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an updated decision-making analysis among 11 international kidney cancer experts. Each expert provided their treatment strategy and relevant decision criteria in the first line treatment of mccRCC. After the collection of all input a list of unified decision criteria was determined and compatible decision trees were created. We used a methodology based on diagnostic nodes, which allows for an automated cross-comparison of decision trees, to determine the most common treatment recommendations as well as deviations. RESULTS: Diverse parameters were considered relevant for treatment selection, various drugs and drug combinations were recommended by the experts. The parameters, chosen by the experts, were performance status, International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, PD-L1 status, zugzwang and contraindication to immunotherapy. The systemic therapies selected for first line treatment were sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib, ipilimumab/nivolumab or pembrolizumab/axitinib. CONCLUSION: A wide spectrum of treatment recommendations based on multiple decision criteria was demonstrated. Significant inter-expert variations were observed. This demonstrates how data from randomized trials are implemented differently when transferred into daily practice.

TiNivo: safety and efficacy of tivozanib-nivolumab combination therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with tivozanib, a highly selective and potent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated single-agent efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) along with minimal off-target toxicities and a favorable adverse event (AE) profile. We report final results from TiNivo, a phase Ib/II study of tivozanib combined with nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In phase Ib, patients with metastatic RCC received tivozanib 1.0 mg once daily (QD) for 21 days followed by 7 days off treatment (n = 3) or tivozanib 1.5 mg QD (n = 3) plus nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be tivozanib 1.5 mg, and 22 additional patients were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose for phase II. Primary end points included safety and tolerability, with secondary end points of objective response rate, disease control rate, and progression-free survival. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were treated with tivozanib 1.5 mg QD [12 (48%) treatment-naïve; 13 (52%) previously treated]. Treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 20 patients (80%); 4 patients (17%) experienced AEs that led to dose reduction, and 8 (32%) discontinued due to AEs. The objective response rate was 56% (including one complete response) and disease control rate was 96%, with a median time to best response of 7.9 weeks. Twenty patients (80%) had tumor shrinkage. With a median follow-up of 19.0 months (range, 12.6-22.8), median progression-free survival was 18.9 months (95% confidence interval 16.4-not reached) in all patients and was similar in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib plus nivolumab combination therapy showed a generally tolerable AE profile and promising antitumor efficacy. These results support further development of tivozanib combined with nivolumab as a treatment option in patients with treatment-naïve or previously treated metastatic RCC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03136627.

Prognosis of renal cell carcinoma with bone metastases: Experience from a large cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases (BMs) are associated with significant morbidity and shorter survival in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Our purpose was to identify prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in RCC patients with BMs. METHODS: Data from patients with BMs from RCC treated at Gustave Roussy between April 1992 and March 2016 were retrospectively collected. Age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk groups, histology, number and site of bone lesions, concomitant metastases (presence and sites), therapy for BMs (radical resection or palliative surgery, radiotherapy and other local and systemic treatments) and time from diagnosis to BMs were analysed. Synchronous solitary bone metastasis (SSBM) was defined as a single BM without concomitant visceral lesions at the initial diagnosis of RCC. OS was calculated from the date of BMs diagnosis to death or last follow-up using Kaplan-Maier method and modelled with Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: From 1750 patients with diagnosis of RCC followed at Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 300 patients with BMs were identified. Median time from diagnosis to BMs was 32.4 months (range 0-324 months). In 64 patients (21%), bone was the only metastatic site, and 22 patients (7%) had an SSBM and 236 patients (79%) had concomitant metastases in other sites. Median OS was 23.2 months (95% confidence interval 19.9-26.2). SSBM patients had better OS than those with concomitant metastases (40 vs 20 months; P < 0.001). At multivariate analysis, concomitant metastases remained predictor of poor prognosis, while MSKCC risk group, radical resection and SSBM were predictors of better OS. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that MSKCC score, numbers of BMs and radical resection are important prognostic factors for RCC patients with BMs. Additionally, in the presence of solitary BM without concomitant metastases at the initial diagnosis of RCC, bone surgery should be considered to achieve local tumour control and likely increase OS.

Adjuvant sunitinib in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma: safety, therapy management, and patient-reported outcomes in the S-TRAC trial.

Background: Adjuvant sunitinib has significantly improved disease-free survival versus placebo in patients with renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence post-nephrectomy (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.98; two-sided P = 0.03). We report safety, therapy management, and patient-reported outcomes for patients receiving sunitinib and placebo in the S-TRAC trial. Patients and methods: Patients were stratified by the University of California, Los Angeles Integrated Staging System and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, and randomized (1 : 1) to receive sunitinib (50 mg/day) or placebo. Single dose reductions to 37.5 mg, dose delays, and dose interruptions were used to manage adverse events (AEs). Patients' health-related quality of life, including key symptoms typically associated with sunitinib, were evaluated with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Results: Patients maintained treatment for 9.5 (mean, SD 4.4) and 10.3 (mean, SD 3.7) months in the sunitinib and placebo arms, respectively. In the sunitinib arm, key AEs occurred ∼1 month (median) after start of treatment and resolved within ∼3.5 weeks (median). Many (40.6%) AEs leading to permanent discontinuation were grade 1/2, and most (87.2%) resolved or were resolving by 28 days after last treatment. Patients taking sunitinib showed a significantly lower EORTC QLQ-C30 overall health status score versus placebo, although this reduction was not clinically meaningful. Patients reported symptoms typically related to sunitinib treatment with diarrhea and loss of appetite showing clinically meaningful increases. Conclusions: In S-TRAC, AEs were predictable, manageable, and reversible via dose interruptions, dose reductions, and/or standard supportive medical therapy. Patients on sunitinib did report increased symptoms and reduced HRQoL, but these changes were generally not clinically meaningful, apart from appetite loss and diarrhea, and were expected in the context of known sunitinib effects. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00375674.

Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: The composition of gut microbiota affects antitumor immune responses, preclinical and clinical outcome following immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in cancer. Antibiotics (ATB) alter gut microbiota diversity and composition leading to dysbiosis, which may affect effectiveness of ICI. Patients and methods: We examined patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 mAb monotherapy or combination at two academic institutions. Those receiving ATB within 30 days of beginning ICI were compared with those who did not. Objective response, progression-free survival (PFS) determined by RECIST1.1 and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: Sixteen of 121 (13%) RCC patients and 48 of 239 (20%) NSCLC patients received ATB. The most common ATB were ß-lactam or quinolones for pneumonia or urinary tract infections. In RCC patients, ATB compared with no ATB was associated with increased risk of primary progressive disease (PD) (75% versus 22%, P < 0.01), shorter PFS [median 1.9 versus 7.4 months, hazard ratio (HR) 3.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-6.9, P < 0.01], and shorter OS (median 17.3 versus 30.6 months, HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.1-10.8, P = 0.03). In NSCLC patients, ATB was associated with similar rates of primary PD (52% versus 43%, P = 0.26) but decreased PFS (median 1.9 versus 3.8 months, HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2, P = 0.03) and OS (median 7.9 versus 24.6 months, HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.6-7.7, P < 0.01). In multivariate analyses, the impact of ATB remained significant for PFS in RCC and for OS in NSCLC. Conclusion: ATB were associated with reduced clinical benefit from ICI in RCC and NSCLC. Modulatation of ATB-related dysbiosis and gut microbiota composition may be a strategy to improve clinical outcomes with ICI.

Reassessing the clinical spectrum associated with hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome in French FH mutation carriers.

We addressed uncertainties regarding hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC) by exploring all French cases, representing the largest series to date. Fumarate hydratase (FH) germline testing was performed with Sanger sequencing and qPCR/MLPA. Enzyme activity was measured when necessary. We carried out whenever possible a pathology review of RCC and S-(2-succino)-cysteine (2SC)/fumarate hydratase immunohistochemistry. We estimated survival using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier. There were 182 cases from 114 families. Thirty-seven RCC were diagnosed in 34 carriers (19%) at a median age of 40. Among the 23 RCC with pathology review, 13 were papillary type 2. There were 4 papillary RCC of unspecified type, 3 unclassified, 2 tubulocystic, and 1 collecting duct (CD) RCC, all 2SC+ and most (8/10) FH-. Of the remaining 14, papillary type 2, papillary unspecified, CD, and clear cell histologies were reported. The vast majority of RCC (82%) were metastatic at diagnosis or rapidly became metastatic. Median survival for metastatic disease was 18 months (95%CI: 11-29). 133 cases (73%) had a history of cutaneous leiomyomas, 3 developed skin leiomyosarcoma. Uterine leiomyomas were frequent in women (77%), but no sarcomas were observed. Only 2 cases had pheochromocytomas/paraganglioma. CONCLUSION: Our findings have direct implications regarding the identification and management of HLRCC patients.

Second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer: experts' consensus algorithms.

BACKGROUND: Second-line systemic treatment options for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer (mccRCC) are diverse and treatment strategies are variable among experts. Our aim was to investigate the approach for the second-line treatment after first-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Recently two phase III trials have demonstrated a potential role for nivolumab (NIV) and cabozantinib (CAB) in this setting. We aimed to estimate the impact of these trials on clinical decision making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven international experts were asked to provide their treatment strategies for second-line systemic therapy for mccRCC in the current setting and once NIV and CAB will be approved and available. The treatment strategies were analyzed with the objective consensus approach. RESULTS: The analysis of the decision trees revealed everolimus (EVE), axitinib (AXI), NIV and TKI switch (sTKI) as therapeutic options after first-line TKI therapy in the current situation and mostly NIV and CAB in the future setting. The most commonly used criteria for treatment decisions were duration of response, TKI tolerance and zugzwang a composite of several related criteria. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the first-line setting, recommendations for second-line systemic treatment of mccRCC among experts were not as heterogeneous. The agents mostly used after disease progression on a first-line TKI included: EVE, AXI, NIV and sTKI. In the future setting of NIV and CAB availability, NIV was the most commonly chosen drug, whereas several experts identified situations where CAB would be preferred.

International cancer seminars: a focus on kidney cancer.

Recent years have seen important advances in our understanding of the etiology, biology and genetics of kidney cancer. To summarize important achievements and identify prominent research questions that remain, a workshop was organized by IARC and the US NCI. A series of 'difficult questions' were formulated, which should be given future priority in the areas of population, genomic and clinical research.

How to report toxicity associated with targeted therapies?

BACKGROUND: In the era of personalized medicine, molecularly targeted therapies (MTT) have modified the outcome of some cancer types. The price of tumor control needs to be balanced with toxicity since these new therapies are administered continuously for several months or sometimes for several years. For cytotoxic drugs, the incidence of adverse event (AE) was traditionally reported as frequency and intensity. This simple measure is not sufficient to capture the recurrent nature and duration of AE. This paper presents two methods to better describe the toxicity burden across the time: prevalence and Q-TWiST. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Limitation of worst-grade method and advantages of prevalence and Q-TWiST in the analysis of toxicity were illustrated using data from a phase II trial and a hypothetically simulated clinical trial. RESULTS: Prevalence integrates the recurrent nature of AE. Using prevalence, it is possible to obtain a time profile of AE. Q-TWiST method evaluates the weighted time spent in each health state and also considers the recurrent nature of side-effects in order to assess the 'risk-benefit' ratio of a treatment. When interpreting Q-TWiST results, it is necessary to take into account overall survival and progression-free survival and to define a clinically relevant difference according to the setting. CONCLUSION: The two methods presented here capture different effects. They are helpful for physicians in their treatment choice (balance benefit risk), to counsel patients and to optimize supportive care. In order to ensure consistency and provide critical information required for medical decision-making, it is important to encourage the use of alternative statistical methods in the analysis of toxicities associated with MTT. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT00541008.

mTOR-inhibitor treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: contribution of Choi and modified Choi criteria assessed in 2D or 3D to evaluate tumor response.

PURPOSE: To determine whether 2D or 3D Choi and modified Choi (mChoi) criteria could assess the efficacy of everolimus against metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: RECIST-1.1, Choi, and mChoi criteria were applied retrospectively to analyse baseline and 2-month contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images in 48 patients with mRCC enrolled in the everolimus arm of the French randomized double-blind multicentre phase III trial comparing everolimus versus placebo (RECORD-1). The primary endpoint was centrally reviewed progression-free survival (PFS) calculated from the initial RECORD-1 analysis. Mean attenuation was determined for 2D target lesion regions of interest drawn on CECT sections whose largest diameters had been measured, and for the 3D whole target lesion. RESULTS: The median PFS was 5.5 months. The median PFS for everolimus responders defined using 3D mChoi criteria was significantly longer than for non-responders (7.6 versus 5.4 months, respectively), corresponding to a hazard ratio for progression of 0.45 (95 % CI: 0.22-0.92), with respective 1-year survival rates of 31 % and 9 %. No other 2D or 3D imaging criteria at 2 months identified patients who would benefit from everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: At 2 months, only 3D mChoi criteria were able to identify mRCC patients with a PFS benefit from everolimus. KEY POINTS: Choi criteria could not identify everolimus-treated patients with significantly prolonged PFS. mCHOI enabled identification of everolimus-treated mRCC patients with a PFS benefit. 3D attenuation measurement criteria appeared to perform better than single-slice measurement.

Guidelines for the definition of time-to-event end points in renal cell cancer clinical trials: results of the DATECAN project†.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, the use of intermediate time-to-event end points (TEEs) is increasingly common, yet their choice and definitions are not standardized. This limits the usefulness for comparing treatment effects between studies. The aim of the DATECAN Kidney project is to clarify and recommend definitions of TEE in renal cell cancer (RCC) through a formal consensus method for end point definitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A formal modified Delphi method was used for establishing consensus. From a 2006-2009 literature review, the Steering Committee (SC) selected 9 TEE and 15 events in the nonmetastatic (NM) and metastatic/advanced (MA) RCC disease settings. Events were scored on the range of 1 (totally disagree to include) to 9 (totally agree to include) in the definition of each end point. Rating Committee (RC) experts were contacted for the scoring rounds. From these results, final recommendations were established for selecting pertinent end points and the associated events. RESULTS: Thirty-four experts scored 121 events for 9 end points. Consensus was reached for 31%, 43% and 85% events during the first, second and third rounds, respectively. The expert recommend the use of three and two endpoints in NM and MA setting, respectively. In the NM setting: disease-free survival (contralateral RCC, appearance of metastases, local or regional recurrence, death from RCC or protocol treatment), metastasis-free survival (appearance of metastases, regional recurrence, death from RCC); and local-regional-free survival (local or regional recurrence, death from RCC). In the MA setting: kidney cancer-specific survival (death from RCC or protocol treatment) and progression-free survival (death from RCC, local, regional, or metastatic progression). CONCLUSIONS: The consensus method revealed that intermediate end points have not been well defined, because all of the selected end points had at least one event definition for which no consensus was obtained. These clarified definitions of TEE should become standard practice in all RCC clinical trials, thus facilitating reporting and increasing precision in between trial comparisons.