Immunotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Various approaches have been developed for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC). The objective was to assess the efficacy of immunotherapeutic approaches. METHODS: We included participants diagnosed with all types of histologically confirmed MRCC, the test intervention was immunotherapy alone or combined with other immunotherapy or targeted therapies, and the study design was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcomes were overall survival, adverse events, and health-related quality of life. We conducted the last search in March 31, 2018. RESULTS: We included nine RCTs, and we established seven different treatment comparisons according to the type of data. Two RCTs favored nivolumab as monotherapy or combined with ipilimumab on account of all primary outcomes. The efficacy data of all other comparisons were either indifferent or favored the control group. CONCLUSION: The immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab as monotherapy or combined with ipilimumab appears to be the only new immunotherapy that may improve overall survival in participants with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Interferon-α alone is unfavorable to targeted therapies with respect to overall survival and adverse events.

Immunotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Since the mid-2000s, the field of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has experienced a paradigm shift from non-specific therapy with broad-acting cytokines to specific regimens, which directly target the cancer, the tumour microenvironment, or both.Current guidelines recommend targeted therapies with agents such as sunitinib, pazopanib or temsirolimus (for people with poor prognosis) as the standard of care for first-line treatment of people with mRCC and mention non-specific cytokines as an alternative option for selected patients.In November 2015, nivolumab, a checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-1 (PD-1), was approved as the first specific immunotherapeutic agent as second-line therapy in previously treated mRCC patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of immunotherapies either alone or in combination with standard targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and their efficacy to maximize patient benefit. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science and registers of ongoing clinical trials in November 2016 without language restrictions. We scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with or without blinding involving people with mRCC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected and analyzed studies according to the published protocol. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE methodology and summarized the quality and magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each primary outcome in our 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight studies with 4732 eligible participants and an additional 13 ongoing studies. We categorized studies into comparisons, all against standard therapy accordingly as first-line (five comparisons) or second-line therapy (one comparison) for mRCC.Interferon (IFN)-α monotherapy probably increases one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapies with temsirolimus or sunitinib (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.51; 2 studies; 1166 participants; moderate-quality evidence), may lead to similar quality of life (QoL) (e.g. MD -5.58 points, 95% CI -7.25 to -3.91 for Functional Assessment of Cancer - General (FACT-G); 1 study; 730 participants; low-quality evidence) and may slightly increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) grade 3 or greater (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; 1 study; 408 participants; low-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between IFN-α plus temsirolimus and temsirolimus alone for one-year overall mortality (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.34; 1 study; 419 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of AEs of 3 or greater may be increased (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.45; 1 study; 416 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no information on QoL.IFN-α alone may slightly increase one-year overall mortality compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.36; 2 studies; 1381 participants; low-quality evidence). This effect is probably accompanied by a lower incidence of AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 2 studies; 1350 participants; moderate-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with IFN-α plus bevacizumab or standard targeted therapy (sunitinib) may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.08; 1 study; 83 participants; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.62; 1 study; 82 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with vaccines (e.g. MVA-5T4 or IMA901) or standard therapy may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.32; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.39; 2 studies; 1065 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.In previously treated patients, targeted immunotherapy (nivolumab) probably reduces one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapy with everolimus (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; 1 study; 821 participants; moderate-quality evidence), probably improves QoL (e.g. RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.78 for clinically relevant improvement of the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS); 1 study, 704 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and probably reduces the incidence of AEs grade 3 or greater (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.65; 1 study; 803 participants; moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of moderate quality demonstrates that IFN-α monotherapy increases mortality compared to standard targeted therapies alone, whereas there is no difference if IFN is combined with standard targeted therapies. Evidence of low quality demonstrates that QoL is worse with IFN alone and that severe AEs are increased with IFN alone or in combination. There is low-quality evidence that IFN-α alone increases mortality but moderate-quality evidence on decreased AEs compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab. Low-quality evidence shows no difference for IFN-α plus bevacizumab compared to sunitinib with respect to mortality and severe AEs. Low-quality evidence demonstrates no difference of vaccine treatment compared to standard targeted therapies in mortality and AEs, whereas there is moderate-quality evidence that targeted immunotherapies reduce mortality and AEs and improve QoL.

The gefitinib long-term responder (LTR)--a cancer stem-like cell story? Insights from molecular analyses of German long-term responders treated in the IRESSA expanded access program (EAP).

BACKGROUND: In selected patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) the EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) gefitinib (IRESSA) shows response rates of ≥ 70% and a significant prolongation of progression free survival (PFS). However, cogent biomarkers predicting long-term response to EGFR-TKIs are yet lacking. Cancer stem-like cells (CSC) are thought to play a pivotal role in tumor regeneration and appear to be influenced by the EGFR-pathway. This makes them a promising candidate for predicting long-term response to EGFR-TKIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed pre-therapeutic tissue specimens of a rare and specific subset of previously treated German patients with advanced NSCLC who experienced ≥ 3 year response to gefitinib within the International IRESSA EAP. 11/20 identified long-term responders (LTRs) had appropriate tissue specimens available. Those were analyzed for EGFR and k-ras (Kirsten rat sarcoma) mutations, EGFR and c-met (met proto-oncogene) amplifications and protein expression of EGFR, E-cadherin/vimentin and the CSC antigens CD133 and BCRP1 (breast cancer resistance protein 1). The results were compared to primary resistant patients (RPs) and intermediate responders (IRs) showing a median response of 8.6 months. RESULTS: Each group consisted of 6 women and 5 men, with 1 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and 10 adenocarcinoma (AC). Along the LTRs, all but the SCC had EGFR mutations, whereas the RPs had no EGFR, but k-ras mutations in 5/11 cases. 8/11 IRs had EGFR and 3/11 k-ras mutations, of which 2 occurred concomitantly. One patient of each group had an EGFR and/or c-met amplification. EGFR and E-cadherin/vimentin expression was not different between the groups, whereas CD133 was expressed only in 4/10 LTRs and BCRP1 predominantly in responders. The LTRs showed a substantially longer mean PFS to previous therapies, a substantially lower number of metastatic sites and almost exclusively pulmonary or pleural metastasis. CONCLUSION: LTRs display established properties of EGFR-TKI responders. Antigens characterizing CSC might identify a fraction of LTRs and matter of interest for further evaluation.

Temporary trans-coronary pacing by coated guidewires: a safe and reliable method during percutaneous coronary intervention.

Relevant bradycardias during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are a rare event, but they require immediate therapy by temporary pacing. However, transvenous pacing is associated with frequent and severe complications. Therefore, we wanted to evaluate the safety and reliability of trans-coronary pacing by means of a PCI guidewire. Coronary pacing was applied to 70 consecutive patients undergoing PCI. Pacing was performed before and after PCI in a unipolar setting using standard guidewires as a cathode and a skin electrode as an anode. Both were connected to an external pacemaker. Coronary pacing (maximum output at 10 V, impulse duration 2.5 ms) was effective in 60 of 70 patients (85.7%). Successful pacing was achieved in the LAD and diagonal branches in 90% (27 of 30 Pts.), in the LCX and marginal branches 84.2% (16 of 19 Pts.) and in the RCA in 81% (17 of 21 Pts.). Pacing thresholds were comparable in all vessels within a range of 1-10 V averaging 6.6 +/- 2.3 V before and 6.6 +/- 2.2 V after PCI. The impedance ranged from 190-544 Omega with mean pacing impedance for coronary pacing of 424 Omega before and 416 Omega after PCI, respectively. Significant bradycardias during PCI occurred in 7 cases (10%). In three cases (4.3%) temporary coronary pacing became necessary at a maximum pacing duration of 3 min. There were no severe side effects. Coronary spasm occurred in 3 cases (4.3%) after pacing and was promptly reversible after intracoronary application of nitroglycerine. It is concluded that coronary pacing is a safe and feasible method for the treatment of bradycardias during PCI. It avoids additional venous puncture under hemodynamically unstable conditions and subsequent transvenous pacing, which is accompanied by potentially severe complications and additional costs.