Efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by numbers of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline in advanced renal cell carcinoma: long-term follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, first-line avelumab + axitinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (favorable, intermediate, and poor); analyses of overall survival (OS) remain immature. Here, we report post hoc analyses of efficacy from the third interim analysis (data cut-off, April 2020) by the numbers of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline. METHODS: Efficacy endpoints assessed were PFS, objective response, and best overall response per investigator assessment (RECIST v1.1) and OS. Best percentage change and percentage change from baseline in target tumor size over time during the study were also assessed. RESULTS: In patients with 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4-6 IMDC risk factors, hazard ratios [HRs; 95% confidence interval (CIs)] for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.660 (0.356-1.223), 0.745 (0.524-1.059), 0.973 (0.668-1.417), 0.718 (0.414-1.248), and 0.443 (0.237-0.829), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.490-1.016), 0.709 (0.540-0.933), 0.711 (0.527-0.960), 0.501 (0.293-0.854), and 0.395 (0.214-0.727), respectively. In patients with 1, 2, 3, or ≥4 target tumor sites, HRs (95% CIs) for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.912 (0.640-1.299), 0.715 (0.507-1.006), 0.679 (0.442-1.044), and 0.747 (0.346-1.615), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.548-0.911), 0.552 (0.422-0.723), 0.856 (0.589-1.244), and 0.662 (0.329-1.332), respectively. Across all subgroups, analyses of objective response rate and complete response rate favored avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib, and a greater proportion of patients treated with avelumab + axitinib had tumor shrinkage. CONCLUSIONS: In post hoc analyses, first-line treatment with avelumab + axitinib was generally associated with efficacy benefits versus treatment with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across subgroups defined by different numbers of IMDC risk factors or target tumor sites.

Extended follow-up from JAVELIN Renal 101: subgroup analysis of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We report updated data for avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the third interim analysis of the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response per investigator assessment (RECIST version 1.1) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in the overall population and in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups; safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was not reached [42.2 months-not estimable (NE)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus 37.8 months (31.4-NE) with sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.643-0.969; one-sided P = 0.0116], and median PFS (95% CI) was 13.9 months (11.1-16.6 months) versus 8.5 months (8.2-9.7 months), respectively (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.568-0.785; one-sided P < 0.0001). In patients with IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, poor-, or intermediate plus poor-risk disease, respectively, HRs (95% CI) for OS with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.66 (0.356-1.223), 0.84 (0.649-1.084), 0.60 (0.399-0.912), and 0.79 (0.636-0.983), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.71 (0.490-1.016), 0.71 (0.578-0.866), 0.45 (0.304-0.678), and 0.66 (0.550-0.787), respectively. ORRs, complete response rates, and durations of response favored avelumab plus axitinib overall and across all risk groups. In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, 81.1% had a grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and incidences of TEAEs and immune-related AEs were highest <6 months after randomization. CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab plus axitinib continues to show improved efficacy versus sunitinib and a tolerable safety profile overall and across IMDC risk groups. The OS trend favors avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib, but data remain immature; follow-up is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02684006; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02684006.

Efficacy and safety of avelumab plus axitinib in elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, first-line avelumab plus axitinib demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) benefit versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). However, efficacy in elderly patients remains unclear. We report efficacy and safety by age group from the second interim analysis of overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: PFS and ORR as per blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1), OS, and safety were assessed in patient groups aged <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years. RESULTS: In the avelumab plus axitinib and sunitinib arms, 271/138/33 and 275/128/41 patients aged <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years, respectively, were randomized. At data cut-off (January 2019), median PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in these respective age groups was 11.6 (8.4-19.4) versus 6.9 (5.6-8.4) months [hazard ratio (HR), 0.63; 95% CI 0.501-0.786], 13.8 (11.1-18.0) versus 11.0 (7.8-16.6) months (HR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.627-1.231), and 13.8 [7.0-not estimable (NE)] versus 9.8 (4.3-NE) months (HR, 0.76; 95% CI 0.378-1.511). Median OS (95% CI) in the respective age groups was not reached (NR) (NE-NE) versus 28.6 (25.5-NE) months (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.541-1.022), 30.0 (30.0-NE) versus NR (NE-NE) months (HR, 0.89; 95% CI 0.546-1.467), and 25.3 (19.9-NE) versus NR (19.4-NE) months (HR, 0.87; 95% CI 0.359-2.106). ORR (95% CI) in the respective age groups was 49.4% (43.3% to 55.6%) versus 27.3% (22.1% to 32.9%), 60.9% (52.2% to 69.1%) versus 28.9% (21.2% to 37.6%), and 42.4% (25.5% to 60.8%) versus 22.0% (10.6% to 37.6%). In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and immune-related AEs occurred in 76.9%/81.2%/72.7% and 45.5%/48.1%/36.4% in the respective age groups. CONCLUSIONS: First-line avelumab plus axitinib demonstrated favorable efficacy across age groups, including patients aged ≥75 years. OS data were still immature; follow-up is ongoing. The safety profile was generally consistent across age groups.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with renal cell carcinoma.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of renal cell carcinoma was published in 2019 with an update planned for 2021. It was therefore decided by both the ESMO and the Singapore Society of Oncology (SSO) to convene a special, virtual guidelines meeting in May 2021 to adapt the ESMO 2019 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of renal cell carcinomas in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices and drug access restrictions in the different Asian countries. The latter were discussed when appropriate.

Outcome of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma across different treatment lines.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have led to a paradigm change in the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Prospective trials have focused on ICI treatment in the first or second line. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the benefit of ICI across different treatment lines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study that included mRCC patients who received ICIs in various treatment lines. Objective response rates (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were eligible for full evaluation. Patients were classified as International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group categorization as good, intermediate and poor risk in 26.8%, 61.6% and 14.8% of cases, respectively. They were treated with ICI monotherapy, dual ICI therapy and ICI + tyrosine kinase inhibitor in 59%, 20% and 21% of cases, respectively. ORR, median PFS and OS for the entire cohort was 39.4%, 9.67 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.9-12.4 months] and 23.6 months (95% CI 13.3-33.9 months), respectively. The ORR by treatment line was 33% in first, 40.4% in the second, 35% in the third and 43.5% in the fourth line and beyond. Median PFS by treatment line was 8.6, 10.3, 7.9 and 7.23 months, respectively. The median OS was not reached in first-line treatment and was 26.2, 18.1 and 20.7 months in the second, third and fourth line and beyond, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ICIs or ICI combinations are active in all treatment lines and should also be offered in heavily pretreated patients. Patient selection based on tumor and patient factors allows for maximal benefit from ICI-based therapies.

Tumor mutational burden and immune infiltrates in renal cell carcinoma and matched brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) and density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) have been postulated as predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy. Therefore, we investigated the concordance of TMB and TIL of primary/extracranial renal cell carcinoma (RCC) specimens and matched brain metastases (BM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty specimens from 10 patients were retrieved from the Vienna Brain Metastasis Registry (6/10 primary tumor, 4/10 lung metastasis, 10/10 matched BM). TMB was assessed using the TruSight Oncology 500 gene panel with libraries sequenced on a NextSeq instrument. TIL subsets (CD3+, CD8+, CD45RO+, FOXP3+, PD-L1+) were investigated using immunohistochemistry (Ventana Benchmark Ultra system) and automated tissue analysis (Definiens software). RESULTS: No significant difference in TMB, CD3+, CD8+, CD45RO+, FOXP3+ or PD-L1+ expression was observed between extracranial and matched intracranial specimens (P > 0.05). Higher CD8+ TIL (P = 0.053) and CD45RO+ TIL (P = 0.030) densities in the primary tumor compared with the intracranial samples were observed in specimens collected after exposure to systemic treatment. Neither extracranial sample origin (lung metastasis versus primary RCC) nor extracranial disease status at BM diagnosis (progressive versus stable disease) were significantly associated with TMB or TIL densities in extracranial and intracranial samples (P > 0.05). No significant correlation was found between the median differences of TMB or TIL densities from extracranial to intracranial samples and BM-free survival. CONCLUSION: The comparable immunological microenvironment of extra- and intracranial tumor samples in our study underscores the immunological activation also in BM from RCC, and therefore, supports the development of immune modulatory treatments also in patients with brain metastatic RCC.

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.

Updated efficacy results from the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial: first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated efficacy data from the second interim analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with aRCC were randomized (1 : 1) to receive avelumab (10 mg/kg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were PFS and overall survival (OS) among patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) tumors. Key secondary end points were OS and PFS in the overall population. RESULTS: Of 886 patients, 442 were randomized to the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 444 to the sunitinib arm; 270 and 290 had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months (data cut-off 28 January 2019), PFS was significantly longer in the avelumab plus axitinib arm than in the sunitinib arm {PD-L1+ population: hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.490-0.777]}; one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.8 (95% CI 10.1-20.7) versus 7.0 months (95% CI 5.7-9.6); overall population: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.574-0.825); one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.3 (95% CI 11.1-15.3) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 6.7-9.8)]. OS data were immature [PD-L1+ population: HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.596-1.151); one-sided P = 0.1301; overall population: HR 0.796 (95% CI 0.616-1.027); one-sided P = 0.0392]. CONCLUSION: Among patients with previously untreated aRCC, treatment with avelumab plus axitinib continued to result in a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus sunitinib; OS data were still immature. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02684006.

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.

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.

Assessing the impact of evolving evidence in renal cell carcinoma treatment: an update of the Renal Cell Carcinoma Appropriateness-based Treatment Toolkit (ReCATT).

The appropriateness of the numerous therapeutic options available for patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was evaluated in 2011, using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) appropriateness methodology to match treatment suitability to a range of patient scenarios. However, the RCC therapeutic area evolves rapidly and a body of new clinical data has accrued in the intervening years; as a result the exercise was repeated in 2013 using the same methodology, expert panel and patient scenarios. The aim of the updated assessment was to update the guidance to clinicians and use it to develop an interactive web-based application, the Renal Cell Carcinoma Appropriateness-based Treatment Toolkit (ReCATT). This round of assessment achieved greater concordance concerning the appropriateness of treatments/interventions for the clinical scenarios tested; this higher level of agreement is likely to reflect the body of scientific evidence accrued since the previous assessment exercise. Many of the areas of disagreement in 2011 related to the suitability of pazopanib or sunitinib treatment; in the 2013 assessment both agents were considered appropriate treatment options for many of the clinical scenarios assessed. Uncertain scenarios often are related to the optimal management of metastatic RCC with clear cell histology. The use of the RAND/UCLA RCC assessment findings to develop the ReCATT support tool will help to disseminate expert opinion concerning best treatment practice and guide the clinical management of RCC patients treated in the community setting.

Clinical biomarkers of response in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

There are now a range of effective targeted agents available for the first- and second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, patients with advanced RCC have varied responses to therapy; some experience long-term responses while others may not respond, or even progress rapidly. Characteristics or markers that could be used to determine which patients will benefit most from which agent may enable us to select the optimal treatment of each individual patient, thereby improving efficacy and avoiding unnecessary toxic effects. These characteristics may be at the cellular or genetic level. Alternatively, the occurrence of adverse events may act as surrogate markers of a drug's on treatment activity, enabling prediction of outcomes during treatment. Recently, it has been suggested that during some targeted therapy for advanced RCC, the occurrence of specific adverse events, such as hypertension, hypothyroidism, hand-foot syndrome or fatigue/asthenia, may be associated with improved efficacy. This article reviews the evidence supporting clinical biomarkers in patients with advanced RCC receiving targeted agents. We also consider how these clinical biomarkers may affect the future management of patients with advanced RCC.

Evaluation of treatment options for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: assessment of appropriateness, using the validated semi-quantitative RAND corporation/University of California, Los Angeles methodology.

A diverse range of treatment options and interventions are available for the management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), allowing clinicians to tailor therapy to best meet their patient's needs and situation. However, choosing from the plethora of options can be problematic. RCC treatment guidelines advise on the most efficacious agents based upon specific clinical trial populations, but these do not always take into account all the patient factors that influence the suitability of treatment options for individual patients. This study used the validated RAND/UCLA (RAND corporation/University of California, Los Angeles) 'appropriateness methodology' to integrate clinical efficacy data with expert opinion concerning the use of specific RCC treatment options for particular patient scenarios, in an attempt to facilitate the widespread implementation of patient-focussed treatment choices. Use of the methodology has allowed us to develop treatment algorithms for patients with locally-advanced RCC and for those with metastatic disease post-nephrectomy or with primary tumour in situ. The algorithms take into account patient-specific characteristics such as tumour histology, prior treatment and known risk factors to advise whether a particular treatment intervention is appropriate, not appropriate or of uncertain appropriateness. Use of this methodology aims to develop a formalised process by which expert opinion can be integrated with clinical data and used as an additional source of information that can provide further guidance concerning difficult treatment decisions when data are absent or sparse.

CD98hc (SLC3A2), a novel marker in renal cell cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a variety of malignant diseases, molecular targeting represents a therapeutic option, whereby, when compared with chemotherapy, fewer side effects are thought to be expected. Especially in renal cell cancer (RCC), tyrosine kinase-inhibitors have been established as useful and highly effective therapy. However, tyrosine kinase-inhibitors currently approved for RCC treatment lack single molecule specificity and bear a variety of side effects of the gastro-intestinal tract, skin, heart and haematopoietic system. Therefore, the identification of novel cell surface markers is sought, which might lead to novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Paraffin-embedded RCCs from a well characterized tissue bank were immunohistochemically quantified for embryonic transmembrane antigen CD98hc (SLC3A2) expression and semi-quantitative analyses were correlated with subtype or grade of differentiation. RESULTS: We found increased CD98hc expression in different types of malign RCCs, among them clear cell (cc)RCC, papillary (p)RCC and chromophobe (ch)RCC, but lack of expression in the benign renal oncocytoma. Thereby, the extent of CD98hc expression directly complies with grade of malignancy. Furthermore, the more malignant type II pRCC significantly higher expressed CD98hc than the less malignant and more differentiated type I pRCC (type II 83.34%, type I 4.76% CD98hc positive, P < 0.00001; n = 51). The established marker for type I pRCC, Cytokreatin 7, showed 95.24% expression in type I and 26.67% expression in type II pRCC (P < 0.00001, n = 51). CONCLUSIONS: From these data, we conclude that CD98hc is expressed in RCCs, whereby the extent of expression is likely to correlate directly with grade of malignancy. In pRCCs, CD98hc might represent a novel and reliable marker for type II pRCC.