Tivozanib plus nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma following an immune checkpoint inhibitor: results of the phase 3 TiNivo-2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are cornerstones of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, optimal treatment sequencing after progression is unknown. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes of tivozanib-nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed following one or two lines of therapy in the post-ICI setting. METHODS: TiNivo-2 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 190 sites across 16 countries, in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and progression during or after one to two previous lines of therapy (including one ICI) were randomised 1:1 to tivozanib (0·89 mg per day, orally) plus nivolumab (480 mg every 4 weeks, intravenously) or tivozanib (1·34 mg per day, orally). Randomisation was stratified by immediate previous therapy (ICI or non-ICI) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to first documentation of objective progressive disease according to RECIST 1·1 or death from any cause, whichever came first, by independent radiology review. Efficacy was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received one or more doses of the study drug. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04987203) and is active and not recruiting. FINDINGS: From Nov 4, 2021, to June 16, 2023, 343 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib-nivolumab (n=171) or tivozanib monotherapy (n=172). Median follow-up was 12·0 months. Median PFS was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-7·4) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 7·4 months (5·6-9·2) with tivozanib monotherapy (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·84-1·43; p=0·49). Among those with an ICI as their immediate previous therapy (n=244), median PFS was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6-9·6) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 9·2 months (7·4-10·0) with tivozanib monotherapy. With non-ICIs as the most recent therapy, lower median PFS was observed, with no difference between groups (tivozanib-nivolumab 3·7 months [95% CI 2·7-5·4] and with tivozanib monotherapy 3·7 months [1·9-7·2]). Serious adverse events occurred in 54 (32%) of 168 patients receiving tivozanib-nivolumab and 64 (37%) of 171 patients receiving tivozanib monotherapy. One (<1%) treatment-related death occurred (tivozanib group). INTERPRETATION: These data further support that ICI rechallenge should be discouraged in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, these data suggest that tivozanib monotherapy has efficacy in the post-ICI setting. FUNDING: Aveo Pharmaceuticals.

Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus Observation in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma is an aggressive disease with high rates of relapse. Whether pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy would be effective in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery is unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive pembrolizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks for 1 year or to undergo observation. Randomization was stratified according to pathological stage, centrally tested programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, and previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The coprimary end points were disease-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We considered the trial to be successful if either disease-free survival or overall survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab than with observation. RESULTS: A total of 702 patients underwent randomization; 354 were assigned to receive pembrolizumab, and 348 were assigned to observation. As of July 5, 2024, the median duration of follow-up for disease-free survival was 44.8 months. The median disease-free survival was 29.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.0 to 40.7) with pembrolizumab and 14.2 months (95% CI, 11.0 to 20.2) with observation (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90; two-sided P = 0.003). Grade 3 or higher adverse events (regardless of attribution) occurred in 50.7% of the patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 31.6% of the patients in the observation group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery, disease-free survival was significantly longer with adjuvant pembrolizumab than with observation. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and others; Alliance A031501 AMBASSADOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03244384.).

Impact of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors on Pathologic Complete Response With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) has been demonstrated to modulate cell proliferation, desmoplasia, angiogenesis and immunosuppression. We examined the association of RAS inhibitors (RASi)-namely angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB)-with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) preceding radical cystectomy (RC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively investigated concurrent RASi use with NAC prior to RC in 302 patients with MIBC from 3 academic institutions. Outcomes included pathologic complete response (pCR) and overall survival (OS). Pathologic features, performance status (PS), clinical stage, type/number of cycles of NAC, and toxicities were collected. RESULTS: Overall pCR rate was 26.2% and 5-year OS was 62%. Concurrent ACEi intake with NAC approached significance for association with pCR (odds ratio [OR] = 1.71; 95% CI, 0.94-3.11; P = .077). Patients with cT3/4N0-N1 disease receiving ACEi had higher pCR rates (30.8% vs. 17.7%, P = .056) than those not on ACEi. Female sex had a statistically significant favorable interaction for pCR with ACEi intake (P = .044). ACEi intake was not associated with OS, while pCR, PS and lower clinical stage were significantly associated with improved OS. CONCLUSION: ACEi intake is potentially associated with increased pCR in patients with MIBC receiving NAC prior to RC, and this association is more pronounced in patients with higher clinical stage of disease at the initiation of therapy and female sex. Our data suggest the potential relevance of the RAS as a therapeutic target in aggressive MIBC.

Characterization of FOLH1 Expression in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Given the emergence of PSMA-targeted diagnostic agents and therapeutics, we sought to investigate patterns of FOLH1 expression in RCC and their impacts on RCC outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a pooled multi-institutional analysis of patients with RCC having undergone DNA and RNA next-generation sequencing. FOLH1-high/low expression was defined as the ≥75th/<25th percentile of RNA transcripts per million (TPM). Angiogenic, T-effector, and myeloid expression signatures were calculated using previously defined gene sets. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated from the time of tissue collection or therapy start. RESULTS: We included 1,724 patients in the analysis. FOLH1 expression was significantly higher in clear cell (71%) compared to non-clear cell RCC tumors (19.0 versus 3.3 TPM, p < 0.001) and varied by specimen site (45% primary kidney/55% metastasis, 13.6 versus 9.9 TPM, p < 0.001). FOLH1 expression was correlated with angiogenic gene expression (Spearman = 0.76, p < 0.001) and endothelial cell abundance (Spearman = 0.76, p < 0.001). While OS was similar in patients with FOLH1-high versus -low ccRCC, patients with FOLH1-high clear cell tumors experienced a longer time on cabozantinib treatment (9.7 versus 4.6 months, respectively, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.93, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We observed differential patterns of FOLH1 expression based on histology and tumor site in RCC. FOLH1 was correlated with angiogenic gene expression, increased OS, and a longer duration of cabozantinib treatment.

Impact of renal cell carcinoma molecular subtypes on immunotherapy and targeted therapy outcomes.

Saliby et al. show that a machine learning approach can accurately classify clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) into distinct molecular subtypes using transcriptomic data. When applied to tumors biospecimens from the JAVELIN Renal 101 (JR101) trial, a benefit is observed with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy across all molecular subtypes.

Randomized Phase II Study Evaluating the Addition of Pembrolizumab to Radium-223 in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

The checkpoint immunotherapeutic pembrolizumab induces responses in a small minority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Radium-223 (R223) may increase immunogenicity of bone metastases and increase pembrolizumab (P) activity. In a randomized phase II study, we assessed the effect of R223+P compared with R223 on tumor immune infiltration, safety, and clinical outcomes in patients with mCRPC. The primary endpoint was differences in CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell infiltrate in 8-week versus baseline bone metastasis biopsies; secondary endpoints were safety, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS). Of the 42 treated patients (29 R223+P, 13 R223), 18 R223+P and 8 R223 patients had evaluable paired tumor biopsies. Median fold-change of CD4+ T cells was -0.7 (range: -9.3 to 4.7) with R223+P and 0.1 (-11.1 to 3.7) with R223 (P = 0.66); for CD8+ T cells, median fold-change was -0.6 (-7.4 to 5.3) with R223+P and -1.3 (-3.1 to 4.8) with R223 (P = 0.66). Median rPFS and OS was 6.1 (95% confidence interval: 2.7-11.0) and 16.9 months [12.7-not reached (NR)], respectively, with R223+P and 5.7 (2.6-NR) and 16.0 (9.0-NR), respectively, with R223. Although R223+P was well tolerated with no unexpected toxicity, the combination did not improve efficacy. High-dimensional flow cytometry demonstrated minimal immune modulation with R223, whereas R223+P induced CTLA-4 expression on circulating CD4+ T cells. Clinical responders possessed lower circulating frequencies of Ki67+ T and myeloid cells at baseline and higher circulating frequencies of TIM-3+ T and myeloid cells by week 9. Although R223+P did not induce T-cell infiltration into the tumor microenvironment, exhaustion of induced peripheral T-cell immune responses may dampen the combination's clinical activity.

One Size Fits Some: Approaching Rare Malignancies of the Urinary Tract.

OPINION STATEMENT: Urothelial carcinoma is the predominant cancer of the urinary tract but when divergent and subtype histology (non-urothelial) are identified at time of pathologic diagnosis, therapeutic and diagnostic challenges transpire. To this end, pathologic review to confirm any non-urothelial histology is key since these subtypes can often be overlooked. Few prospective trials are dedicated to understanding these non-urothelial histologic types; however, current, and past trials did allow patients with these non-urothelial histologic types to enroll, and inferences can be made about treatment efficacy and survival. Existing treatment regimens for non-urothelial bladder cancers are akin to standard urothelial cancer regimens using surgical approaches for localized disease and platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced disease. The reported clinical trials, that will be discussed, center on non-urothelial histologic types. These studies, albeit limited, provide critical insight into tumor biology and response to standard platinum-based chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and antibody drug conjugates. The inclusion of non-urothelial histologic types will be essential for clinical trials in development to provide further therapeutic advances and provide essential efficacy data.

Comprehensive multiplexed autoantibody profiling of patients with advanced urothelial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive profiling of autoantibodies (AAbs) in metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) has not been performed to date. This may aid in diagnosis of UC, uncover novel therapeutic targets in this disease as well as identify associations between AAbs and response and toxicity to systemic therapies. METHODS: We used serum from patients with mUC collected prior to and after systemic therapy (immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) or platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC)) at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 38 age-matched and sex-matched healthy controls (HCs) from healthy blood donors were also evaluated. The SeroTag immuno-oncology discovery array (Oncimmune) was used, with quantification of the AAb reactivity toward 1132 antigens. Bound AAbs were detected using an anti-immunoglobulin G-specific detection antibody conjugated to the fluorescent reporter dye phycoerythrin. The AAb reactivity was reported as the median fluorescence intensity for each color and sample using a Luminex FlexMAP3D analyzer. Clinical outcomes of interest included radiographic response and development of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Significance analysis of microarray was used to compare mUC versus HC and radiographic response. Associations with irAE were evaluated using a logistic regression model. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: 66 patients were included with a median age of 68 years; 54 patients (82%) received ICI and 12 patients (18%) received PBC. Compared with HCs, AAbs against the cancer/testis antigens (CTAG1B, CTAG2, MAGEB18), HSPA1A, TP53, KRAS, and FGFR3 were significantly elevated in patients with mUC. AAbs against BRCA2, TP53, and CTNBB1 were associated with response, and those against BICD2 and UACA were associated with resistance to ICI therapy. AAbs against MITF, CDH3, and KDM4A were associated with development of irAEs in patient who received an ICI. A higher variance in pre-to-post treatment fold change in AAb levels was seen in patients treated with ICI versus PBC and was associated with response to ICI. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of comprehensive AAb profiling of patients with mUC and identified key AAbs that were elevated in patients with mUC versus HCs as well as AAbs associated with therapeutic response to ICI. These findings are hypothesis generating and further mechanistic studies evaluating humoral immunity in UC are required.

Vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma pretreated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify evidence for use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based therapy. METHODS: This was a PRISMA-standard systematic literature review; registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255568). Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (January 28, 2021; updated September 13, 2022) to identify publications reporting efficacy/effectiveness and safety/tolerability evidence for anti-VEGF treatment in patients with RCC who had received prior CPI therapy. RESULTS: Of 2,639 publications screened, 48 were eligible and featured 2,759 patients treated in trials and 2,209 in real-world studies (RWS). Most patients with available data were treated with anti-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens (trials: 93 %; RWS: 100 %), most commonly cabozantinib, which accounted for 46 % of trial and 62 % of RWS patients in publications with available data. Collectively, there was consistent evidence of anti-VEGF treatment activity after prior CPI therapy. Activity was reported for all anti-VEGF regimens and regardless of prior CPI-based regimen. No new safety signals were detected for subsequent anti-VEGF therapy; no studies suggested increased immune-related adverse events associated with prior CPI therapy. The results were limited by data quality; study heterogeneity prohibited meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Based on the available data (most commonly for cabozantinib), anti-VEGF therapy appears to be a rational treatment choice in patients with RCC who have progressed despite prior CPI-based therapy. Results from ongoing trials of combination anti-VEGF plus CPI regimen post prior CPI therapy trials will contribute more definitive evidence. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Anticancer treatments that work by reducing levels of a substance in the body called Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor are known as anti-VEGF drugs. Reducing VEGF levels helps to reduce blood supply to tumors, which can slow the speed at which the cancer grows. Some other types of anticancer drugs that help the immune system to fight cancer cells are called checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we looked at published studies that investigated how anti-VEGF drugs work, and what side effects they cause, in people who have already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors for a type of kidney cancer called renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to summarize the available evidence to help doctors decide how best to use anti-VEGF drugs in these patients. We found 48 studies that included almost 5,000 patients. The results of the studies showed that anti-VEGF drugs have anticancer effects in people with renal cell carcinoma who had already been treated with checkpoint inhibitors. All of the VEGF-targeting drugs had anticancer effects, irrespective of what checkpoint inhibitor treatment people had received before. There were different amounts of evidence available for the different anti-VEGF drugs. The anti-VEGF cabozantinib had the largest amount of evidence. Importantly, previous checkpoint inhibitor treatment did not seem to affect the number or type of side-effects associated with anti-VEGF drugs. Results from ongoing, well-designed studies will be helpful to confirm these results. Our findings may be useful for doctors considering using anti-VEGF drugs in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have received checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

IGF-1 axis changes with ADT and docetaxel in metastatic prostate cancer.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) forms the cornerstone of treatment in locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Since the growth hormone-insulin-like growth factor (GH-IGF-1) axis has been implicated in prostate tumorigenesis, we aimed to evaluate the association between IGF-1 and its binding proteins on outcomes in men with metastatic PCa treated with ADT, with or without docetaxel (D). We analyzed serum samples for IGF-1 and its family proteins from baseline, 6 months post-randomization, and at the time of progression in men enrolled to receive ADT +/- D in the phase 3 CHAARTED trial. The key outcomes were time to the development of castrate-resistant prostate cancer and overall survival (OS). About 560 patients had samples available for analysis. At 6 months, significant increases in IGF-BP1 (mean Δ+27.4%, P = 0.033), IGF-BP3 (mean Δ+10.3%, P < 0.001), and IGF-BP4 (mean Δ+31.1%, P < 0.001) were seen in the ADT + D group, while the ADT group showed an increase in IGF-BP3 (mean Δ+5.5%, P = 0.015). A higher IGF-1:IGF-BP1 ratio at baseline and after 6 months was associated with improved OS in both the ADT (baseline: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77, P = 0.026; 6 months: HR = 0.83, P = 0.036) and ADT + D groups (baseline: HR = 0.78, P = 0.04; 6 months: HR = 0.81, P = 0.018). Patients with a log10IGF-1:IGF-BP1 ratio >1.3 at baseline had improved OS when meta-analyzed with data from a prior cohort (HR = 0.71). A higher baseline and 6-month IGF-1:IGF-BP1 ratio was associated with better OS. Further exploration of the IGF-1 axis will be important to assess its role as a predictive biomarker and to target this axis in therapeutic trials.

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent. METHODS: Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4). CONCLUSION: Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

Challenges in conducting fractional polynomial and standard parametric network meta-analyses of immune checkpoint inhibitors for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aim: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) increasingly feature time-varying hazards to account for non-proportional hazards between different drug classes. This paper outlines an algorithm for selecting clinically plausible fractional polynomial NMA models. Methods: The NMA of four immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and one TKI therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) served as case study. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) data were reconstructed from the literature, 46 models were fitted. The algorithm entailed a-priori face validity criteria for survival and hazards, based on clinical expert input, and predictive accuracy against trial data. Selected models were compared with statistically best-fitting models. Results: Three valid PFS and two OS models were identified. All models overestimated PFS, the OS model featured crossing ICI + TKI versus TKI curves as per expert opinion. Conventionally selected models showed implausible survival. Conclusion: The selection algorithm considering face validity, predictive accuracy, and expert opinion improved the clinical plausibility of first-line RCC survival models.

Circulating and Intratumoral Immune Determinants of Response to Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Variant Histology or Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of variant histology comprises approximately 20% of kidney cancer diagnoses, yet the optimal therapy for these patients and the factors that impact immunotherapy response remain largely unknown. To better understand the determinants of immunotherapy response in this population, we characterized blood- and tissue-based immune markers for patients with variant histology RCC, or any RCC histology with sarcomatoid differentiation, enrolled in a phase II clinical trial of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. Baseline circulating (plasma) inflammatory cytokines were highly correlated with one another, forming an "inflammatory module" that was increased in International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium poor-risk patients and was associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS; P = 0.028). At baseline, an elevated circulating vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) level was associated with a lack of response (P = 0.03) and worse PFS (P = 0.021). However, a larger increase in on-treatment levels of circulating VEGF-A was associated with clinical benefit (P = 0.01) and improved overall survival (P = 0.0058). Among peripheral immune cell populations, an on-treatment decrease in circulating PD-L1+ T cells was associated with improved outcomes, with a reduction in CD4+PD-L1+ [HR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-0.91; P = 0.016] and CD8+PD-L1+ T cells (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87; P = 0.009) correlated with improved PFS. Within the tumor itself, a higher percentage of terminally exhausted (PD-1+ and either TIM-3+ or LAG-3+) CD8+ T cells was associated with worse PFS (P = 0.028). Overall, these findings support the value of tumor and blood-based immune assessments in determining therapeutic benefit for patients with RCC receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and provide a foundation for future biomarker studies for patients with variant histology RCC receiving immunotherapy-based combinations.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

Cabozantinib Safety With Different Anticoagulants in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) on cabozantinib, venous thromboembolism (VTE) management remains challenging due to limited safety data regarding direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) use in conjunction with cabozantinib. We investigated the safety of cabozantinib with different anticoagulants in patients with RCC. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study (9 sites), patients with advanced RCC were allocated into 4 groups: (1) cabozantinib without anticoagulation, cabozantinib with concomitant use of (2) DOACs, (3) low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), or (4) warfarin. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of major bleeding events (defined per International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of new/recurrent VTE while anticoagulated. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2020, 298 patients with RCC received cabozantinib (no anticoagulant = 178, LMWH = 41, DOAC = 64, and warfarin = 15). Most patients had clear cell histology (78.5%) and IMDC intermediate/poor disease (78.2%). Cabozantinib was first, second, or ≥ third line in 21.8%, 31.9%, 43.3% of patients, respectively. Overall, there was no difference in major bleeding events between the no anticoagulant, LMWH, and DOAC groups (P = .088). Rate of new/recurrent VTE was similar among anticoagulant groups. Patients with a VTE had a statistically significantly worse survival than without a VTE (HR 1.48 [CI 95% 1.05-2.08, P = .02]). CONCLUSION: This real-world cohort provides first data on bleeding and thrombosis complications in patients with RCC treated with cabozantinib with or without concurrent anticoagulation. DOACs appear safe for VTE treatment for patients with RCC on cabozantinib, but optimized anticoagulation management, including individualized risk-benefit discussion, remains important in clinical practice.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

Phase II trial of CV301 vaccine combined with atezolizumab in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

CV301 comprises recombinant poxviruses, Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) and Fowlpox (FPV), encoding CEA, MUC-1, and co-stimulatory Molecules (TRICOM) ICAM-1, LFA-3, and B7-1. MVA-BN-CV301 is used for priming and FPV-CV301 is used for boosting. A Phase 2, single-arm trial was designed to evaluate CV301 plus atezolizumab as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) (Cohort 1) or progressing after platinum chemotherapy (Cohort 2). MVA-CV301 was given subcutaneously (SC) on Days 1 and 22 and FPV-CV301 SC from day 43 every 21 days for 4 doses, then tapered gradually over up to 2 years. Atezolizumab 1200 mg IV was given every 21 days. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Overall, 43 evaluable patients received therapy: 19 in Cohort 1; 24 in Cohort 2; nine experienced ≥ Grade 3 therapy-related adverse events. In Cohort 1, one had partial response (PR) (ORR 5.3%, 90% CI 0.3, 22.6). In Cohort 2, 1 complete response and 1 PR were noted (ORR 8.3%, 90% CI 1.5, 24.0). The trial was halted for futility. Patients exhibiting benefit demonstrated T-cell response to CEA and MUC-1. The trial illustrates the challenges in the development of vaccines, which should be guided by robust preclinical data.