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

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

Economic value of toripalimab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma in China: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The current analysis aimed to evaluate the economic benefit of toripalimab plus axitinib for previously untreated RCC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: The partitioned survival model was developed to simulate 3-week patients' transition in 20-year time horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for advanced RCC. Survival data were gathered from the RENOTORCH trial, and cost and utility inputs were obtained from the database and published literature. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outputs. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to increase the comprehensiveness and estimate the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, compared with sunitinib, toripalimab plus axitinib could bring additional 1.19 LYs and 0.65 QALYs, with the marginal cost of $41,499.23, resulting in the ICER of $64,337.49/QALY, which is higher than the WTP threshold. And ICERs were always beyond the WTP threshold of all subgroups. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the model results were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Toripalimab plus axitinib was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with previously untreated advanced RCC compared with sunitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Efficacy and toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a significant overall survival advantage over standard advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) therapies, tumor response to these agents remains poor. Some studies have shown that combination therapy including an ICI appears to be the best treatment; however, the overall benefit in terms of efficacy and toxicity still needs to be assessed. Thus, we performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate the differences in the efficacy of several combinations that include an ICI to provide a basis for clinical treatment selection. Methods: We conducted a thorough search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles from January 2010 to June 2023. R 4.4.2 and STATA 16.0 were used to analyze data; hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results. Results: An indirect comparison showed that nivolumab plus cabozantinib and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib were the most effective treatments for progression-free survival (PFS), with no significant differences between the two interventions (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.96-1.78; P=0.08); rank probability showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib had a 57.1% chance of being the preferred treatment. In the absence of indirect comparisons between pembrolizumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (40.2%) was the best treatment option for overall survival (OS). Compared to pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.65; P=0.02) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.00-0.78; P<0.001) had a lower incidence of overall adverse events (AEs). Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib and pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in the highest PFS and OS rates, respectively. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib may be the best option when AEs are a concern. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY202410078.

Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting the impact of tumor size on cancer-specific survival of locally advanced renal cell carcinoma: a SEER-based study.

This study was aimed to integrate tumor size with other prognostic factors into a prognostic nomogram to predict cancer-specific survival (CSS) in locally advanced (≥pT3a Nany M0) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients. Based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, 10,800 patients diagnosed with locally advanced RCC were collected. They were randomly divided into a training cohort (n = 7,056) and a validation cohort (n = 3,024). X-tile program was used to identify the optimal cut-off value of tumor size and age. The cut-off of age at diagnosis was 65 years old and 75 years old. The cut-off of tumor size was 54 mm and 119 mm. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed in the training cohort to identify independent prognostic factors for construction of nomogram. Then, the nomogram was used to predict the 1-, 3- and 5-year CSS. The performance of nomogram was evaluated by using concordance index (C-index), area under the Subject operating curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis (DCA). Moreover, the nomogram and tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging system (AJCC 8th edition) were compared. 10 variables were screened to develop the nomogram. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) indicated satisfactory ability of the nomogram. Compared with the AJCC 8th edition of TNM stage, DCA showed that the nomogram had improved performance. We developed and validated a nomogram for predicting the CSS of patients with locally advanced RCC, which was more precise than the AJCC 8th edition of TNM staging system.

Current role of intraoperative cell salvage techniques in the management of renal tumors with level III and IV inferior vena cava thrombus extension.

Background: En bloc removal of the kidney with tumor thrombus excision in a multidisciplinary team remains the standard treatment for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with tumor thrombus extension. In order to minimize the hemodynamic impact of the surgical blood loss, intraoperative cell salvage (IOCS) techniques can decrease the need for allogeneic blood and prevent blood transfusion related complications. Objective: In this article, we evaluated the safety of IOCS during radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy under cardiopulmonary bypass with or without deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. Design and method: In this retrospective comparative multicenter analysis, clinical characteristics of 27 consecutive patients who underwent surgery with or without IOCS between 2012 and 2022 in three referral care units were collected into a database. The need for an allogenic blood transfusion (ABT) was also recorded, defined as any transfusion that occurred either intraoperatively or during the hospital stay. Results: The need for ABT in the cell saver arm was significantly smaller due to the reinfusion of rescued blood (p < 0.015). In multivariate analysis, no cell saver usage was an independent predictor for complications ⩾3 Clavien 3a [odds ratio (OR) 18.71, 95% CI 1.056-331.703, p = 0.046]. No usage of IOCS was an independent predictor for a lower risk of death (OR 0.277, 95% CI 0.062-0.825, p = 0.024). During follow-up, patients who received salvaged blood did not experience an increased risk for developing local recurrence or distant metastases. Conclusion: Transfusion of autologous blood is safe and can be using during nephrectomy and thrombectomy for advanced RCC.

Role of intraoperative cell salvage techniques in the management of renal tumors with advanced caval extension En bloc removal of the kidney with tumor thrombus excision in a multidisciplinary team remains the standard treatment for RCC with tumor thrombus extension. Intraoperative cell salvage techniques (IOCS) can decrease the need for allogeneic blood and prevent blood transfusion related complications. In this article we demonstrated that transfusion of autologous blood is safe and can be using during nephrectomy and thrombectomy for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Combination Therapy as First-line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) combination therapy (NIVO + IPI) compared with the sunitinib (SUN) therapy for Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the perspective of a Japanese health insurance payer. METHODS: A lifetime horizon was applied, and 2% per annum was set as the discount rate. The threshold was set as $ 75 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For the analytical method, we used a partitioned survival analysis model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated by dividing incremental costs by incremental QALYs. Progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death were set as health states. Additionally, cost parameters and utility weights were set as key parameters. We set the intermediate/poor-risk population as the base case. Scenario analysis was conducted for the intention-to-treat population and the favorable risk population. Furthermore, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted for each population. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the QALYs of NIVO + IPI and SUN were 4.32 and 2.99, respectively. NIVO + IPI conferred 1.34 additional QALYs. Meanwhile, the total costs in the NIVO + IPI and SUN were $692 288 and $475 481, respectively. As a result, the ICER of NIVO + IPI compared with SUN was estimated to be $162 243 per QALY gained. The parameter that greatly affected the ICER was the utility weight of progression-free survival in NIVO + IPI. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO + IPI for advanced renal cell carcinoma seems to be not cost-effective compared with the SUN in the Japanese healthcare system.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 30% of new renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cases are diagnosed at an advanced or metastatic stage. Recent approvals of immunotherapies (IO) have significantly impacted patient care, but real-world outcomes of these treatments have not been widely evaluated. METHODS: Eligible physicians abstracted demographic and clinical data from patient medical records for patients with advanced clear and non-clear cell RCC (aRCC) who initiated treatment between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariate Cox regression model was developed to assess the impact of treatment category on clinical outcomes while controlling for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, histology, and other patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 498 patients were included (201 from US, 62 from Canada, 58 from UK, 59 from France, 58 from Germany, 60 from Spain). Of these, 250 received tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy, 197 received immunotherapy (IO) combination (119 IO+TKI, 78 IO+IO), and 32 received IO monotherapy as first-line treatment for aRCC; 19 patients received various other regimens. 16% of patients had a favorable IMDC risk score. Based on results of multivariable Cox regression, PFS (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.50 [0.36-0.72]) (P < .001) and time to next treatment (TTNT) were significantly longer (HR [95% CI]: 0.54 [0.39-0.73]) (P < .001) for patients treated with IO combination versus TKI monotherapy. IO combination had a numerically reduced, but statistically insignificant, risk of death versus TKI monotherapy (HR: 0.66; P = .114). IO+TKI combination was associated with significantly longer PFS and reduced risk of progression (HR: 0.52; P = .04) versus IO+IO combination; similar results were observed for TTNT (HR: 0.57; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Our evaluation of real-world treatment outcomes in aRCC revealed that IO + TKI combination is associated with improved PFS and prolonged TTNT compared with TKI monotherapy and IO+IO combination.

Toripalimab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: RENOTORCH, a randomized, open-label, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors are standard treatments for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This phase III RENOTORCH study compared the efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for the first-line treatment of patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk unresectable or metastatic RCC were randomized in a ratio of 1 : 1 to receive toripalimab (240 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily) or sunitinib [50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle) or 2 weeks (3-week cycle)]. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). The secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 421 patients were randomized to receive toripalimab plus axitinib (n = 210) or sunitinib (n = 211). With a median follow-up of 14.6 months, toripalimab plus axitinib significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 35% compared with sunitinib as assessed by an IRC [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.86; P = 0.0028]. The median PFS was 18.0 months in the toripalimab-axitinib group, whereas it was 9.8 months in the sunitinib group. The IRC-assessed ORR was significantly higher in the toripalimab-axitinib group compared with the sunitinib group (56.7% versus 30.8%; P < 0.0001). An OS trend favoring toripalimab plus axitinib was also observed (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.92). Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 61.5% of patients in the toripalimab-axitinib group and 58.6% of patients in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSION: In patients with previously untreated intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC, toripalimab plus axitinib provided significantly longer PFS and higher ORR than sunitinib and had a manageable safety profile TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04394975.

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.

Preoperative prognostic model for localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma: Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group.

BACKGROUND: The Modified International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Dataset Consortium model (mIMDC) is a preoperative prognostic model for pT3cN0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study aimed to validate the mIMDC and to construct a new model in a localized and locally advanced RCC (LLRCC). METHODS: A database was established (the Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group database) consisting of 79 patients who were clinically diagnosed with LLRCC (cT3b/c/4NanyM0) and underwent radical nephrectomy from December 2007 to May 2018. Using univariable and multivariable analyses, we retrospectively analyzed disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in this database, constructed a new prognostic model according to these results, and estimated the model fit using c-index on the new and mIMDC models. RESULTS: Independent poorer prognostic factors for both DFS and OS include the following: ≥ 1 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, 2.0 mg/dL C-reactive protein, and > upper normal limit of white blood cell count. The median DFS in the favorable (no factor), intermediate (one factor), and poor-risk group (two or three factors) was 76.1, 14.3, and 4.0 months, respectively (P < 0.001). The 3-year OS in the favorable, intermediate, and poor-risk group were 92%, 44%, and 0%, respectively (P < 0.001). The c-indices of the new and mIMDC models were 0.67 and 0.60 for DFS (P = 0.060) and 0.74 and 0.63 for OS (P = 0.012), respectively. CONCLUSION: The new preoperative prognostic model in LLRCC can be used in patient care and clinical trials.

Change in Splenic Volume as a Surrogate Marker for Immunotherapy Response in Patients with Advanced Urothelial and Renal Cell Carcinoma-Evaluation of a Novel Approach of Fully Automated Artificial Intelligence Based Splenic Segmentation.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of advanced urothelial (aUC) and renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), biomarkers such as PD-1 and PD-L1 are not robust prognostic markers for immunotherapy (IO) response. Previously, a significant association between IO and a change in splenic volume (SV) was described for several tumour entities. To the best of our knowledge, this study presents the first correlation of SV to IO in aUC and aRCC. METHODS: All patients with aUC (05/2017-10/2021) and aRCC (01/2012-05/2022) treated with IO at our academic centre were included. SV was measured at baseline, 3 and 9 months after initiation of IO using an in-house developed convolutional neural network-based spleen segmentation method. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression models for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used. RESULTS: In total, 35 patients with aUC and 30 patients with aRCC were included in the analysis. Lower SV at the three-month follow-up was significantly associated with improved OS in the aRCC group. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a new, innovative artificial intelligence-based approach of a radiological surrogate marker for IO response in aUC and aRCC which presents a promising new predictive imaging marker. The data presented implicate improved OS with lower follow-up SV in patients with aRCC.

Impact of First Line Antiangiogenic Therapy Duration on Nivolumab Outcome in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated in the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic renal clear cell carcinoma (ccRCC), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and immune checkpoint are 2 main therapeutic targets. We investigated the impact of duration exposure to antiangiogenic on immunotherapy clinical outcomes in metastatic ccRCC. METHODS: Patients from NIVOREN trial who received nivolumab after only 1 prior antiangiogenic therapy were included. Response rate, clinical benefit, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were prospectively analyzed depending on the duration of the first line (< 6 months, ≥6 months) and exploratory in patients with long first line exposure (≥18 months). The circulating levels of 8 plasma proteins and cytokines at baseline were collected and compared according to first line antiangiogenic duration. RESULTS: Among 354 patients, 127 (36%) and 227 (64%) patients had received first line antiangiogenic for < 6months and ≥ 6months respectively. Respective duration of first line therapy was not associated with objective response to nivolumab (20.5% vs. 23.9%, P = .50), or PFS (HR 0.92; P = .421). Median OS was respectively 16.6 and 31.3 months in the <6 and ≥6 months subgroups respectively. Adjusted on international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk, age and metastatic site, OS was longer in patients with longer treatment duration in the first line setting (HR 0.73; P = .017). Duration of first line VEGFR TKI was independent from circulating levels of 8 proteins and cytokines at nivolumab baseline. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab activity in second line is independent from first-line duration of VEGFR TKI. However, first line VEGFR TKI duration ≥ 6 months is associated with longer OS.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus pembrolizumab and axitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma with intermediate or poor prognostic risk: a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (PEM + AXI) have demonstrated significant clinical benefits as first-line (1 L) treatments for intermediate/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of NIVO + IPI versus PEM + AXI from a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective, utilizing a novel approach to estimate comparative efficacy between the treatments. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model (progression-free, progressed, and death) was developed to estimate costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) over a 40-year time horizon. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons between NIVO + IPI and PEM + AXI, clinical data for NIVO + IPI was obtained from CheckMate 214 (NCT02231749) and for PEM + AXI from KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331). A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted to account for the imbalance of treatment effect modifiers between the trials. Patient characteristics, resource use, health state utilities, and costs were based on Brazilian-specific sources. Costs and health outcomes were both discounted by 5% annually in line with Brazilian guidelines. The robustness of the results was evaluated through extensive sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses. RESULTS: When comparing the matched versus unmatched OS, PFS, and TTD curves there was no noteworthy difference. NIVO + IPI was associated with cost savings (R$ 350,232), higher LYs (5.54 vs. 4.61), and QALYs (4.74 vs. 3.76) versus PEM + AXI, resulting in NIVO + IPI dominating PEM + AXI. Key model drivers were the treatment duration for PEM, NIVO, and AXI. NIVO + IPI remained dominant in all scenario analyses, which indicated that model results were robust to alternative modelling inputs or assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and potentially cost-saving 1 L treatment option when compared with PEM + AXI for intermediate/poor-risk a RCC patients in the Brazilian private healthcare system.

On-treatment risk model for predicting treatment response in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The field of immunotherapy combinations for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) has been expanded in recent years. However, the treatment response varies widely among individual patients. It is still a challenge to predict oncological outcome in clinical practice. We assessed the impact of an activated immune system reflected by changes in C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and the early onset of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) on the treatment response. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of 57 aRCC patients, CRP kinetics based on previous descriptions of CRP flare-response, CRP response or CRP non-response, and the TRAEs, which occurred within a month after therapy initiation, were obtained for this study. According to logistic regression analysis of both factors, we stratified the patients into risk groups: the presence of CRP flare-response/response and early onset of TRAE (low-risk group); the presence of a single factor (intermediate-risk group); and without both factors (high-risk group). RESULTS: Ten patients (17%) experienced primary disease progression. No progressive disease was observed in the low-risk group, while 60% (n = 6/10) of the high-risk group showed a primary disease progression. Significantly, an increased risk of disease progression was observed by patients without CRP response and TRAEs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present analysis displays the predictive value of the on-treatment risk model based on CRP kinetics and the early onset of TRAEs, which can be easy to implement in clinical practice to optimize the treatment monitoring.

Immunotherapy and Antiangiogenic Therapy for the Treatment of Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and an Updated Network Meta-Analysis of Phase III Clinical Trials.

In advanced renal cell carcinoma, few randomized controlled trials involving immunotherapy plus antiangiogenic therapy have shown survival benefits relative to Sunitinib. Our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined immunotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy compared to Sunitinib therapy alone in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Six phase III randomized controlled trials were analyzed, including 4,119 patients. The primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival, and the secondary endpoints were objective response rate and serious adverse events. The results showed that combined immunotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate compared to Sunitinib alone. No significant difference was observed in adverse events between the two groups. This study suggests that combined immunotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy is a great treatment option for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

High levels of baseline serum IL-10 are associated with reduced clinical benefit from first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) became a standard treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, clinically valid biomarkers of therapeutic outcome are lacking. We investigated the role of interleukin-10 (IL-10) as a predictive biomarker for first-line ICI therapy in patients with advanced RCC. Baseline serum samples were prospectively collected and analyzed using a cytometric bead assay. Patients were divided into two groups according to their serum IL-10 levels using maximally selected rank statistics. A fraction (13.0%) of patients had high levels of serum IL-10 at baseline. High serum IL-10 levels (> 4.3 ng/mL) were associated with a significantly shorter progression-free (median: 5.2 months vs. not reached, P = 0.007) and overall survival (median: 13.9 months vs. not reached, P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed the independent association between high serum IL-10 levels and poor survival outcomes. Effector cytokine production and the proliferative response of CD8+ T cells were significantly lower in patients with high serum IL-10 levels, who also had a shorter duration of response to first-line ICI therapy (4.6 months vs. not reached, P < 0.001). In conclusion, elevated serum IL-10 levels at baseline were associated with reduced clinical benefit from first-line ICI therapy in patients with advanced RCC.

A Delphi Study of Core Patient-Reported Outcomes for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma and Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: There is little research to help health care professionals understand what patient outcomes are considered a priority in advanced liver or kidney cancer. Knowing what is important to patients can help promote person-centered approaches to treatment and disease management. The aim of this study was to identify those patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that patients, carers, and health care professionals consider as "core" when providing care to those with advanced liver or kidney cancer. DATA SOURCES: A three-round Delphi study was undertaken to ask experts by profession or experience to rank PROs identified from a previous literature review. Fifty-four experts, including people living with advanced liver or kidney cancer (44.4%), family members and caregivers (9.3%), and health care professionals (46.8%), reached consensus on 49 PROs including 12 new items (eg, palpitations, hopefulness, or social isolation). Items with the highest rate of consensus included quality of life, pain, mental health, and capacity to do daily activities. CONCLUSION: People living with advanced liver or kidney cancer experience complex health care needs. Some important outcomes were not actually captured in practice in this population and were suggested as part of this study. There are discrepancies between the views of health care professionals, patients, and family in what is important, highlighting the need of using measures to facilitate communication. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Identification of priority PROs reported here will be key to facilitate more focused patient assessments. The actual use of measures in cancer nursing practice to allow monitoring of PROs must be tested for feasibility and usability.

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.

A rapid review of patient-reported outcomes investigated in the context of advanced renal cell cancer or advanced hepatocellular cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are key indicators of health status and functioning, coming directly from the patient. Comprehensive monitoring of PROs enables implementation of person-centred care. Currently, the PROs that patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) consider of greatest importance remains unknown. METHODS: A rapid literature review was carried out to identify PROs commonly reported in clinical studies of patients with advanced RCC/HCC. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL & PsycInfo for relevant peer-reviewed publications in the period from 2000 to 2021. Pre-specified selection criteria were applied to all retrieved records. Findings were integrated into a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Eighty-one studies met our selection criteria and were retained. Most research was on advanced RCC (n = 64, 79%); 46 studies (57%) were drug trials. Only twenty-six studies (32%) employed PROs as their primary endpoint. Most PROs concerned physical symptoms (45% RCC, 54% HCC) and emotional wellbeing (19% RCC, 16% HCC). The most common outcome measured was quality of life (65% of the total), followed by fatigue (62%) and pain (54%). Whether selection of these PROs was patient-driven was not reported. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of PROs were assessed. Deficits in PROs often cause patients to seek out help; however, which PROs matter the most to people with advanced RCC/HCC must be further clarified. Targeting, monitoring, and responding to the 'right' PROs can enhance provision of person-centred care in advanced RCC/HCC and augment the clinical efficacy of established and emerging targeted therapies.

First-Line Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The CLEAR trial indicated that survival benefits were generated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) or everolimus (LE) than with sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). However, the high cost of immuno-target and dual-targeted treatment, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus in the first-line setting for treatment of patients with aRCC from the United States (US) payers' perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of LP or LE in first-line therapy for aRCC. We estimated life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published studies. Then, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Additional subgroup analyses were considered. RESULTS: Treatment with LP and LE provided an additional 0.67 QALYs (0.62 LYs) and 0.66 QALYs (0.90 LYs) compared with sunitinib, resulting in ICER of $131,656 per QALY and 201,928 per QALY, respectively. The most influential factor in this model was the cost of pembrolizumab with LP. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed there was a 58.97% and 28.91% probability that LP and LE were cost-effective at WTP values of $150,000 per QALY in the US. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that LP was more cost-effective for patients from Western Europe and North America, intermediate risk of the International risk group of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC), favorable and intermediate risk group of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and PD-L1 combined positive score greater than or equal to 1%. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the US payer, LP is a cost-effective option as first-line treatment for patients with aRCC at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, but LE is the opposite.