Delphi consensus on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma-a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology study endorsed by the European Association of Urology.

The purpose of this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) project, endorsed by the European Association of Urology, is to explore expert opinion on the management of patients with oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma by means of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on extracranial metastases, with the aim of developing consensus recommendations for patient selection, treatment doses, and concurrent systemic therapy. A questionnaire on SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma was prepared by a core group and reviewed by a panel of ten prominent experts in the field. The Delphi consensus methodology was applied, sending three rounds of questionnaires to clinicians identified as key opinion leaders in the field. At the end of the third round, participants were able to find consensus on eight of the 37 questions. Specifically, panellists agreed to apply no restrictions regarding age (25 [100%) of 25) and primary renal cell carcinoma histology (23 [92%] of 25) for SABR candidates, on the upper threshold of three lesions to offer ablative treatment in patients with oligoprogression, and on the concomitant administration of immune checkpoint inhibitor. SABR was indicated as the treatment modality of choice for renal cell carcinoma bone oligometatasis (20 [80%] of 25) and for adrenal oligometastases 22 (88%). No consensus or major agreement was reached regarding the appropriate schedule, but the majority of the poll (54%-58%) retained the every-other-day schedule as the optimal choice for all the investigated sites. The current ESTRO Delphi consensus might provide useful direction for the application of SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma and highlight the key areas of ongoing debate, perhaps directing future research efforts to close knowledge gaps.

Real World Analysis of Peritoneal Metastasis From Renal Cell Carcinoma. Meet-Uro27.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal metastases (PM) have been reported in approximately 1% of patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC). Outcome data are limited due to the rarity of this metastatic site. Therefore, the aim of our study is to describe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with PM treated as per clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline characteristics and outcome data of patients with PM from RCC were retrospectively collected from 18 Italian oncological referral centers adhering to the Meet-Uro group, from January 2016 to January 2023. RESULTS: We collect 81 RCC patients with PM. 78/81 received systemic treatment, 3/81 only best supportive care. First line treatment included tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI) (46/78), ImmuneOncology (IO)-TKI (26/78) and IO-IO (6/78), with different Objective Response Rate (ORR) (43.4% in TKI monotherapy group vs 50% in IO-TKI group, respectively) and Disease Control Rate (DCR) (60.8% in TKI treated patients vs. 76.9% in IO-TKI treated patients). Median PFS was 6.4 months (95%CI 4.18-14.8) in patients treated with TKI monotherapy vs 23.7 months (95%CI 11.1-NR) in patients treated with IO-TKI (p < 0.015). The median OS (mOS) was 22.7 months (95%CI 13.32 - 64.7) in the TKI monotherapy group vs 34.5 mo (95%CI NR-NR) in the IO-TKI group with 53.8% of patients alive at 1 years in the latter group, (p < 0.16). Primary refractory patients were 36.9% for TKI and 15.3% for IO-TKI. According to International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score, mPFS and mOS were consistent among risk categories. Median PFS was 36.6 months (95%CI 10.9-NR) for good risk patients compared to 10 months (95%CI 7.5-29.8) for intermediate risk and 2.96 months (95%CI 2.43-11.28) for poor risk population (p < 0.0005) whereas mOS was NR (95%CI 28.65-NR) for good risk patients compared to 35.3 months (95%CI 24.6-NA) and 12.4 months (95%CI 3.52-NR) for intermediate and poor risk population, respectively, (p < 0.0002). Only 34/78 (43.5%) received a second line treatment that was TKI (ORR 8.3% and DCR 41.6%) or IO (ORR 18.1% and DCR 40.9%). CONCLUSION: We report one of the largest case series regarding PM from RCC. Characteristics of patients suggest a more aggressive behavior of PM from mRCC. Outcome data suggest that TKI-IO as first line treatment, and TKI as second line, confirm their activity for these patients with dismal prognosis.

Impressive and Prolonged Response with Lenvatinib in a Highly Pretreated Patient with Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cancer: A Case Report.

Clear cell renal carcinoma (ccRCC) can occur in young people and could be associated with an aggressive behavior. While for the first-line treatment in metastatic disease, there is an agreement to rely on an immunotherapy (IO)-based combination regimen, no standard second-line regimens exist. Generally, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are employed, even in sequence, although no trials have demonstrated yet the best succession. Herein, we present the case of a 39-year-old male, with a very aggressive ccRCC with somatic VHL mutation and distant metastases at diagnosis. He was treated with four different lines of therapies, including TKIs, with progressive multiple tumor deposits. Lenvatinib alone as the fifth line was able to induce a remarkable and prolonged tumor shrinkage with manageable toxicities.

Significance of PD-L1 in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have broadened the metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) therapeutic scenario. The association of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) with response and survival in patients treated with ICIs is still controversial. Objectives: To evaluate the association of PD-L1 with response rate and overall survival among patients with mUC treated with ICIs. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology Meeting Libraries, and Web of Science were searched up to December 10, 2023. Study Selection: Two authors independently screened the studies. Included studies were randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials enrolling patients with mUC receiving ICIs with available overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or overall response rate (ORR) data, separated between patients with PD-L1-positive and -negative tumors. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Fixed- or random-effects models were used depending on the heterogeneity among the studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were odds ratios (ORs) for ORR and hazard ratios (HRs) for OS, comparing patients with PD-L1-positive tumors and patients with PD-L1-negative tumors. Secondary outcomes were the PFS HR between patients with PD-L1-positive and -negative tumors and OS HR between ICI arms and non-ICI arms of only randomized clinical trials. Results: A total of 14 studies were selected, comprising 5271 patients treated with ICIs (2625 patients had PD-L1-positive tumors). The ORR was 13.8% to 78.6% in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors and 5.1% to 63.2% in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, with an association between PD-L1 status and ORR favoring patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.47-2.56; P < .001). Median OS ranged from 8.4 to 24.1 months in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors and from 6.0 to 19.1 months in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors. The pooled HR showed a significant reduction for patients with PD-L1-positive tumors compared with those with PD-L1-negative tumors in the risk of death (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.89; P = .003) and risk of progression (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.69; P < .001) when ICIs were administered. PD-L1 is not likely to be a predictive biomarker of ICI response. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that PD-L1 expression is associated with improved ORR, OS, and PFS for patients with mUC who receive ICIs, but it is unlikely to be useful as a predictive biomarker. Developing predictive biomarkers is essential to select patients most likely to benefit from ICIs and avoid toxic effects and financial burden with these agents.

Avelumab Plus Intermittent Axitinib in Previously Untreated Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. The Tide-A Phase 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) plus immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) against PD1/PD-L1 are the standard first-line therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), irrespective of the prognostic class. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and safety of withdrawing VEGFR-TKI but continuing anti-PD1/PD-L1 in patients who achieve a response to their combination. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a single-arm phase 2 trial in patients with treatment-naïve mRCC with prior nephrectomy, without symptomatic/bulky disease and no liver metastases. INTERVENTION: Enrolled patients received axitinib + avelumab; after 36 wk of therapy those who achieved a tumour response interrupted axitinib and continued avelumab maintenance until disease progression. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was the rate of patients without progression 8 wk after the axitinib interruption. The secondary endpoints were the median value for progression-free (mPFS) and overall (mOS) survival and the safety in the overall population. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Seventy-nine patients were enrolled and 75 were evaluated for efficacy. A total of 29 (38%) patients had axitinib withdrawn, as per the study design, with 72% of them having no progression after 8 wk and thus achieving the primary endpoint. The mPFS of the overall population was 24 mo, while the mOS was not reached. The objective response rate was 76% (12% complete response and 64% partial response), with 19% of patients having stable disease. In the patients who discontinued axitinib, the incidence of adverse events of any grade was 59% for grade 3 and 3% for grade 4. This study was limited by the lack of a comparative arm. CONCLUSIONS: The TIDE-A study demonstrates that the withdrawal of VEGFR-TKI with ICI maintenance is feasible for selected mRCC patients with evidence of a response to the VEGFR-TKI + ICI combination employed in first-line therapy. Axitinib interruption with avelumab maintenance leads to decreased side effects and should be investigated further as a new strategy to delay tumour progression. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated whether certain patients with advanced kidney cancer treated with the fist-line combination of axitinib plus avelumab can interrupt the axitinib in case of a tumour response after 36 wk of therapy. We found that axitinib interruption improved the safety of the combination, while the maintenance with avelumab might delay tumour progression.

Time to strategy failure and treatment beyond progression in pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving nivolumab: post-hoc analysis of the Meet-URO 15 study.

Background: Immunotherapies exhibit peculiar cancer response patterns in contrast to chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Some patients experience disease response after initial progression or durable responses after treatment interruption. In clinical practice, immune checkpoint inhibitors may be continued after radiological progression if clinical benefit is observed. As a result, estimating progression-free survival (PFS) based on the first disease progression may not accurately reflect the actual benefit of immunotherapy. Methods: The Meet-URO 15 study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 571 pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. Time to strategy failure (TSF) was defined as the interval from the start of immunotherapy to definitive disease progression or death. This post-hoc analysis compared TSF to PFS and assess the response and survival outcomes between patients treatated beyond progression (TBP) and non-TBP. Moreover, we evaluated the prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score versus the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score based on TSF and PFS. Results: Overall, 571 mRCC patients were included in the analysis. Median TSF was 8.6 months (95% CI: 7.0 - 10.1), while mPFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 5.7 - 8.5). TBP patients (N = 93) had significantly longer TSF (16.3 vs 5.5 months; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (34.8 vs 17.9 months; p < 0.001) but similar PFS compared to non-TBP patients. In TBP patients, a median delay of 9.6 months (range: 6.7-16.3) from the first to the definitive disease progression was observed, whereas non-TBP patients had overlapped median TSF and PFS (5.5 months). Moreover, TBP patients had a trend toward a higher overall response rate (33.3% vs 24.3%; p = 0.075) and disease control rate (61.3% vs 55.5%; p = 0.31). Finally, in the whole population the Meet-URO score outperformed the IMDC score in predicting both TSF (c-index: 0.63 vs 0.59) and PFS (0.62 vs 0.59). Conclusion: We found a 2-month difference between mTSF and mPFS in mRCC patients receiving nivolumab. However, TBP patients had better outcomes, including significantly longer TSF and OS than non-TBP patients. The Meet-URO score is a reliable predictor of TSF and PFS.

Initial management approach for localized/locally advanced disease is critical to guide metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Currently, several therapies are available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) but no specific clinical factors to personalize treatment. We first sought the prognostic value of duration on androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) in patients receiving androgen-receptor-signaling inhibitors (ARSI) for mCRPC. METHODS: A multicenter cohort of mCRPC patients who started ARSI between July 2011 and October 2021 was identified. Based on their initial disease burden and duration on ADT for HSPC, primary progressive (PP) men were classified into four groups: low/intermediate-risk localized disease (LOC) and high-risk localized/locally advanced disease (LAD) and short-term (ST) < 24 vs. long-term (LT) ADT ≥ 24 months, whereas de novo (DN) mHSPC were subdivided into short-time vs. long-time to CRPC. RESULTS: We included 919 mCRPC patients with a median age of 77 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 71-82)]. Median ADT duration in HSPC was 24 months (IQR = 14-40). Median follow-up was 91 months (IQR = 62-138), median OS and PFS from ARSI start were 20 (IQR 10-32) and 10 months (IQR = 5-19), respectively. In PP developing metastatic disease (n = 655, 71.3%), LOC and LAD with ST ADT had a greater than almost double-risk of death compared to LT ADT (LOC/ST: hazard ratio [HR] = 2.01; 95% CI 1.54-2.64; LAD/ST: HR = 1.73; 95% CI 1.34-2.24; p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis including age, prognostic cohort, Gleason, ECOG, radical radiotherapy and prostatectomy, groups with ST ADT were associated with worse OS compared to LT ADT (LOC/ST: HR = 1.84; 95% CI 1.38-2.45; p < 0.001; LAD/ST: HR = 1.59; 95% CI 1.21-2.10; p < 0.001), along with ECOG > 2 (HR = 1.55; 95% CI 1.06-2.26; p = 0.03). There were also similar results of PFS. Moreover, long-time to CRPC in patients with history of DN mHSPC (n = 264, 28.7%) resulted in a better OS/PFS (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.02, p = 0.064 and HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-0.99, p = 0.042, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that duration on ADT for mHSPC was significantly associated with survival in mCRPC undergoing ARSI. These findings suggest a possible connection between initial management of prostate tumour and a better prognostication in mCRPC. Prospective trials are warranted.

Impact of Metastatic Site in Favorable-Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Sunitinib or Pazopanib.

BACKGROUND: Although in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients with intermediate and poor risk the benefit of combination strategies versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) has been ascertained, in those with favorable risk data are ambiguous. Herein, we investigated the impact of number and type of metastatic site in patients with favorable risk to contribute to the best therapeutic choice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicenter data regarding patients with favorable risk mRCC carcinoma receiving first-line TKIs, sunitinib or pazopanib, were retrospectively collected. We divided our population into 2 groups based on the number of metastatic sites and analyzed its impact on tumor response and efficacy outcome. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate efficacy outcomes and the log-rank test to examine differences between subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients with a median age of 69 years were included in the final analysis. Patients with 1 metastatic site, compared with patients with > 1 site, had a significantly longer overall survival (OS) (not reached vs. 66 months) and a trend, although not statistically significant, of better progression-free survival (PFS) (31 vs. 17 months). In patients with 1 metastatic site, liver involvement was correlated with worse PFS and OS at the univariate analysis (P = .01) and was confirmed as independent poor prognostic factor for PFS at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we reported a longer OS in favorable risk mRCC patients receiving TKI with only 1 metastatic site. Nevertheless, in patients with a single metastatic site, hepatic involvement correlated with worse PFS compared to other metastatic sites.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

A phase II study evaluating the efficacy of enzalutamide and the role of liquid biopsy for evaluation of ARv7 in mCRPC patients with measurable metastases including visceral disease (Excalibur study).

Background: Up to 30% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) develop visceral metastases, which are associated with a poor prognosis. Objectives: Efficacy of enzalutamide in mCRPC patients with measurable metastases, including visceral and/or extra-regional lymph nodes. Methods: In this phase II multicenter study, patients with mCRPC and measurable metastases received enzalutamide as the first line. Primary endpoint: 3-month (mo) disease control rate (DCR) defined as the proportion of patients with complete (CR) or partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary endpoint: safety. Exploratory endpoint: the association between ARv7 splicing variants in basal circulating tumor cell (CTC)-enriched blood samples and treatment response/resistance using the AdnaTest ProstateCancerSelect kit and the AdnaTest ProstateCancer Panel AR-V7. Results: From March 2017 to January 2021, 68 patients were enrolled. One patient never started treatment. Median age: 72 years. A total of 52 patients (78%) received enzalutamide as a first line for mCRPC. The median follow-up was 32 months. At the 3-month assessment, 24 patients presented an SD, 1 patient achieved a CR, and 23 patients had a PR (3-mo-DCR of 72%). Discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), disease-related death, or disease progression occurred in 9%, 6%, and 48% of patients. All patients reported at least one grade (G) 1-2 AE: the most common were fatigue (49%) and hypertension (33%). Six G3 AEs were reported: two hypertension, one seizure, one fatigue, one diarrhea, and one headache. Basal detection of ARv7 was significantly associated with poor treatment response (p = 0.034) and a nonsignificant association (p = 0.15) was observed between ARv7 detection and response assessments. At month 3, ARv7 was detected in 57%, 25%, and 15% of patients undergoing progressive disease, SD, and PR, respectively. Conclusion: The study met its primary endpoint, showing the efficacy of enzalutamide in men with mCRPC and measurable metastatic lesions in visceral and/or lymph node sites. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03103724. First Posted: 6 April 2017. First patient enrollment: 19 April 2017.

Real-world Outcome of Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma and Intermediate- or Poor-risk International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Criteria Treated by Immune-oncology Combinations: Differential Effectiveness by Risk Group?

BACKGROUND: Renal c carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most common urinary cancers worldwide, with a predicted increase in incidence in the coming years. Immunotherapy, as a single agent, in doublets, or in combination with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), has rapidly become a cornerstone of the RCC therapeutic scenario, but no head-to-head comparisons have been made. In this setting, real-world evidence emerges as a cornerstone to guide clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the outcome of patients treated with first-line immune combinations or immune oncology (IO)-TKIs for advanced RCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from 930 patients, 654 intermediate risk and 276 poor risk, were collected retrospectively from 58 centers in 20 countries. Special data such as sarcomatoid differentiation, body mass index, prior nephrectomy, and metastatic localization, in addition to biochemical data such as hemoglobin, platelets, calcium, lactate dehydrogenase, neutrophils, and radiological response by investigator's criteria, were collected. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The median follow-up was calculated by the inverse Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up time was 18.7 mo. In the 654 intermediate-risk patients, the median OS and PFS were significantly longer in patients with the intermediate than in those with the poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria (38.9 vs 17.3 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] p < 0.001, and 17.3 vs 11.6 mo, 95% CI p < 0.001, respectively). In the intermediate-risk subgroup, the OS was 55.7 mo (95% CI 31.4-55.7) and 40.2 mo (95% CI 29.6-51.6) in patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p = 0.047). PFS was 30.7 mo (95% CI 16.5-55.7) and 13.2 mo (95% CI 29.6-51.6) in intermediate-risk patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p < 0.001). In the poor-risk subgroup, the median OS and PFS did not show a statistically significant difference between IO + IO and IO + TKI. Our study presents several limitations, mainly due to its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed differences between the IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations in intermediate-risk patients. A clear association with longer PFS and OS in favor of patients who received the IO + TKI combinations compared with the IO-IO combination was observed. Instead, in the poor-risk group, we observed no significant difference in PFS or OS between patients who received different combinations. PATIENT SUMMARY: Renal cancer is one of the most frequent genitourinary tumors. Treatment is currently based on immunotherapy combinations or immunotherapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but there are no comparisons between these.In this study, we have analyzed the clinical course of 930 patients from 58 centers in 20 countries around the world. We aimed to analyze the differences between the two main treatment strategies, combination of two immunotherapies versus immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy, and found in real-life data that intermediate-risk patients (approximately 60% of patients with metastatic renal cancer) seem to benefit more from the combination of immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy than from double immunotherapy. No such differences were found in poor-risk patients. This may have important implications in daily practice decision-making for these patients.

Prognostic Stratification by the Meet-URO Score in Real-World Older Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Receiving Cabozantinib: A Subanalysis of the Prospective ZEBRA Study (Meet-URO 9).

BACKGROUND: The addition of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and bone metastases to the IMDC classification provided by the Meet-URO score, resulted in higher prognostic accuracy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving ≥2nd line nivolumab or cabozantinib in 2 retrospective analyses and 1st line nivolumab-ipilimumab in an expanded access programme. Prognostic estimates for older mRCC patients might be key for clinical decision-making. METHODS: The outcome of real-world older (≥70 years) mRCC patients treated with any line cabozantinib within the multicenter observational prospective ZEBRA (Meet-URO 9) study was analyzed according to the baseline Meet-URO score. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The discriminative ability by Harrell's c-index and calibration were assessed to compare the Meet-URO and IMDC scores. RESULTS: A total of 104 mRCC patients received cabozantinib as 1st (38%), 2nd (20%), or ≥3rd (41%) line. With a median follow-up of 11.2 months, the median OS (mOS) was of 18.4 months. According to the IMDC score, favorable (15%), intermediate (65%) and poor-risk (19%) patients had a mOS not reached, of 15.6 and 5.7 months respectively (p = .011). According to the Meet-URO score groups, mOS was not reached in both group 1 (10%) and group 2 (25%), while in group 3 (33%), group 4 (25%) and group 5 (8%) mOS was of 13.6, 12.5, and 3.7 months, respectively (p < .001). The discriminative ability of the Meet-URO score was maintained by merging groups 1 to 2 vs. 3 to 4 vs. 5 (p < .001). The Meet-URO score (with either the original 5-group stratification or the modified 3-group one) showed higher accuracy than the IMDC score (c-index of 0.686 and 0.676 vs. 0.622). CONCLUSION: This analysis confirmed the prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score in older mRCC patients treated with cabozantinib and its role as a convenient tool for informing the patient and clinical decisions.

Hematological Toxicity of PARP Inhibitors in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients with Mutations of BRCA or HRR Genes: A Systematic Review and Safety Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as single agents or in combination with androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA). However, a clinically relevant adverse effect of these agents is hematological toxicity, a typical class adverse event (AE), which can lead to treatment modifications and discontinuations. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyze the risk of hematological AEs, including anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia secondary to PARPi treatments in mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meeting abstracts for clinical trials concerning the use of PARPis, both as single agents and in combination, in patients with mCRPC. The search deadline was 30 June, 2023. We analyzed the pooled incidence of all grades of and ≥ G3 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. We subsequently calculated risk ratios (RRs) for all grades of and ≥ G3 AEs of PARPis versus non-PARPis from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Eleven phase 2/3 trials with olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib administered as single agents or combined with ARTA were selected. Anemia was the most common all grades (38.6%) and ≥ G3 AE (24.9%). In the analysis of relative risk, six RCTs were included. The administration of PARPis significantly increased the risk of developing all grades of anemia (RR = 2.44), neutropenia (RR = 3.15), and thrombocytopenia (RR = 4.66) compared with non-PARPis. Similarly, a significant increase in the risk of ≥ G3 anemia (RR = 5.73) and thrombocytopenia (RR = 5.44), and a not significant increased risk of neutropenia (RR = 3.41), were detected. CONCLUSIONS: In mCRPC, PARPis increase the risk of hematological toxicity compared with other treatments, both as single agents or combined with ARTA (high-quality evidence). Clinicians should be aware of this risk and the correct management, especially with the expected increased PARPis use in mCRPC.

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.

Cabozantinib in the Routine Management of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review of Real-World Evidence.

Real-world cabozantinib use has increased since its approval to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in 2016. We reviewed cabozantinib use in real-world clinical practice and compared outcomes with pivotal cabozantinib randomized control trials (RCTs). This PRISMA-standard systematic literature review evaluated real-world effectiveness and tolerability of cabozantinib in patients with RCC (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021245854). Systematic MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane database searches were conducted on November 2, 2022. Eligible publications included ≥ 20 patients with RCC receiving cabozantinib. After double-screening for eligibility, standardized data were abstracted, qualitatively summarized, and assessed for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Of 353 screened publications, 41 were included, representing approximately 11,000 real-world patients. Most publications reported cabozantinib monotherapy cohort studies (40/41) of retrospective (39/41) and multicenter (32/41) design; most included patients from North America and/or Europe (30/41). Baseline characteristics were demographically similar between real-world and pivotal RCT populations, but real-world populations showed greater variation in prevalence of prior nephrectomy, multiple-site/brain metastasis, and nonclear-cell RCC histology. Cabozantinib activity was reported across real-world treatment lines and tumor types. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate values from pivotal RCTs were within the ranges reported for equivalent outcomes across real-world studies. Common real-world grade ≥ 3 adverse events were consistent with those in pivotal RCTs (fatigue, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, diarrhea, hypertension), but less frequent. No new tolerability concerns were identified. Real-world RCC survival outcomes for cabozantinib monotherapy were broadly consistent with pivotal RCTs, despite greater heterogeneity in real-world populations.

Sodium Levels and Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Nivolumab.

Importance: Low sodium levels have been associated with negative outcomes among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving therapies other than immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Objective: To investigate the role of natremia in patients with mRCC receiving nivolumab as a second-line or subsequent therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, the clinical and biochemical data of patients with mRCC receiving nivolumab were collected from October 2015 to November 2019 as part of a multicenter Italian study. Data analysis was performed from February to March 2023. Exposure: Nivolumab was administered intravenously at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks and, since May 2018, at a fixed dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to their median serum sodium value (<140 or ≥140 mEq/L). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the associations of pre-ICI and post-ICI sodium levels with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and disease control rate (DCR). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate PFS and OS, and differences between groups were compared using the log-rank test. Results: A total of 401 patients with mRCC receiving nivolumab as second-line therapy were evaluated, and 355 eligible patients (median [range] age, 76 [44-84] years; 258 male patients [72.7%]) were included in the final cohort. Among patients with pre-ICI sodium greater than or equal to 140 mEq/L compared with those with sodium less than 140 mEq/L, the median PFS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.5-11.5 months) vs 7.4 months (95% CI, 4.6-10.1 months; P = .90), and the median OS was 29.2 months (95% CI, 21.8-35.9 months) vs 20.0 months (95% CI, 14.1-26.8 months; P = .03). Patients with post-ICI sodium values greater than or equal to 140 mEq/L had longer PFS (11.1 months [95% CI, 8.5-1.5 months] vs 5.1 months [95% CI, 4.1-7.5 months]; P = .01) and OS (32.9 months [95% CI, 25.1-42.6 months] vs 17.1 months [95% CI, 12.6-24.5 months]; P = .006) compared with patients with sodium values less than 140 mEq/L. Patients with both pre-ICI and post-ICI sodium values greater than or equal to 140 mEq/L exhibited a significant improvement in clinical outcomes compared with those with a value less than 140 mEq/L (PFS, 11.5 months [95% CI, 8.8-16.4 months] vs 5.8 months [95% CI, 4.4-8.3 months]; P = .008); OS, 37.6 months [95% CI, 29.0-49.9 months] vs 19.4 months [95% CI, 14.1-24.5 months]; P = .01). Moreover, sodium levels greater than or equal to 140 mEq/L were associated with significantly better DCR than lower sodium levels. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of patients with mRCC receiving nivolumab, sodium values greater than or equal to 140 mEq/L, both before and/or after ICI, were associated with better OS and PFS, as well as a higher DCR, compared with levels less than 140 mEq/L. These findings suggest that sodium levels may be associated with survival outcomes in patients with mRCC and may have potential use as variables to consider in patients' risk scores.

Olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROpel): final prespecified overall survival results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system-interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1-40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8-40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4-not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0-39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis. FUNDING: Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Geographical differences in the management of metastatic de novo renal cell carcinoma in the era of immune-combinations.

BACKGROUND: The upfront treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been revolutionized by the introduction of immune-based combinations. The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in these patients is still debated. The ARON-1 study (NCT05287464) was designed to globally analyze real-world data of mRCC patients receiving first-line immuno-oncology combinations. This sub-analysis is focused on the role of upfront or delayed partial or radical CN in three geographical areas (Western Europe, Eastern Europe, America/Asia). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study in mRCC patients treated with first-line immune combinations from 55 centers in 19 countries. From 1152 patients in the ARON-1 dataset, we selected 651 patients with de novo mRCC. 255 patients (39%) had undergone CN, partial in 14% and radical in 86% of cases; 396 patients (61%) received first-line immune-combinations without previous nephrectomy. RESULTS: Median overall survival (OS) from the diagnosis of de novo mRCC was 41.6 months and not reached (NR) in the CN subgroup and 24.0 months in the no CN subgroup, respectively (P<0.001). Median OS from the start of first-line therapy was NR in patients who underwent CN and 22.4 months in the no CN subgroup (P<0.001). Patients who underwent CN reported longer OS compared to no CN in all the three geographical areas. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in terms of patients' outcome seem to clearly emerge, even if the rate CN and the choice of the type of first-line immune-based combination varies across the different Cancer Centers participating in the ARON-1 project.