Kidney cancers have been extensively studied, and insights from an increased understanding of tumor biology have led to increases in survival rates. Therapies aimed at tumor signaling pathways and ...immunotherapies have improved the outlook for patients with renal cancer.
Until recently, there was a dearth of effective systemic therapies for kidney cancer. The incidence of the disease steadily increased from 1975 through 2008 and leveled off after 2008.
1
–
3
Currently, it is among the 10 most frequently diagnosed cancers in men and women in the United States, with more than an estimated 62,000 new cases in 2016.
4
The prognosis has historically been poor, with current 5-year survival rates of 74% overall, decreasing to 53% among patients with locoregional (stage III) disease and 8% among patients with metastatic disease.
1
,
3
Kidney cancer is a disease of the middle-aged and elderly: . . .
Metastatic renal-cell carcinoma has diverse clinical presentations ranging from incidental detection to a highly symptomatic systemic illness. Patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma are ...assigned a risk category — favorable, intermediate, or poor — on the basis of two published models containing five or six pretreatment selection factors, including presence of anemia, elevated serum calcium concentration, and degree of disability from cancer-related symptoms (performance status).
1
This stratification provides important prognostic insight about whether patients should be treated with cytoreductive radical nephrectomy, systemic therapies, or both.
1
Nephrectomy for stage IV disease removes the primary kidney tumor and its potential for bleeding and . . .
Over the past decade, the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has evolved dramatically. The therapeutic options available have expanded and now include ...immune-checkpoint inhibitors, novel targeted agents and combination strategies, and thus optimal patient selection and treatment sequencing are increasingly pertinent for optimizing clinical outcomes. A better understanding of the underlying biology of the tumour and its microenvironment continues to drive the inception of new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Furthermore, many biomarkers robustly associated with treatment and disease-specific outcomes have been identified, and their integration into clinical decision-making for patients with advanced-stage disease will soon become a reality. Herein, we review relevant aspects of the molecular biology of metastatic RCC, with an emphasis on predictive and prognostic biomarkers, and suggest tailored algorithms to individualize and guide treatment approaches for specific subgroups of patients.
Integrated multi-omics evaluation of 823 tumors from advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients identifies molecular subsets associated with differential clinical outcomes to angiogenesis blockade ...alone or with a checkpoint inhibitor. Unsupervised transcriptomic analysis reveals seven molecular subsets with distinct angiogenesis, immune, cell-cycle, metabolism, and stromal programs. While sunitinib and atezolizumab + bevacizumab are effective in subsets with high angiogenesis, atezolizumab + bevacizumab improves clinical benefit in tumors with high T-effector and/or cell-cycle transcription. Somatic mutations in PBRM1 and KDM5C associate with high angiogenesis and AMPK/fatty acid oxidation gene expression, while CDKN2A/B and TP53 alterations associate with increased cell-cycle and anabolic metabolism. Sarcomatoid tumors exhibit lower prevalence of PBRM1 mutations and angiogenesis markers, frequent CDKN2A/B alterations, and increased PD-L1 expression. These findings can be applied to molecularly stratify patients, explain improved outcomes of sarcomatoid tumors to checkpoint blockade versus antiangiogenics alone, and develop personalized therapies in RCC and other indications.
Display omitted
•Genomics of 823 RCC tumors, including 134 sarcomatoid tumors, reveals 7 subtypes•Subtype specific angiogenesis, immune, metabolic, stromal, and cell-cycle profiles•Differential prevalence of PBRM1, KDM5C, CDKN2A/2B, and TP53 alterations in subsets•Differential outcomes to VEGF blockade alone or in combination with anti-PD-L1
Motzer et al. perform integrative multi-omics analyses of 823 renal cancer tumors from a randomized clinical trial. A robust molecular classification scheme, based on transcriptional and gene alteration profiles and differential clinical outcomes to VEGF blockade alone or in combination with anti-PD-L1, informs personalized treatment strategies and future therapeutic development in RCC.
We report on molecular analyses of baseline tumor samples from the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (n = 886; NCT02684006 ), which demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) ...with first-line avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We found that neither expression of the commonly assessed biomarker programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) nor tumor mutational burden differentiated PFS in either study arm. Similarly, the presence of FcɣR single nucleotide polymorphisms was unimpactful. We identified important biological features associated with differential PFS between the treatment arms, including new immunomodulatory and angiogenesis gene expression signatures (GESs), previously undescribed mutational profiles and their corresponding GESs, and several HLA types. These findings provide insight into the determinants of response to combined PD-1/PD-L1 and angiogenic pathway inhibition and may aid in the development of strategies for improved patient care in aRCC.
Nivolumab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 programmed death-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody that restores T-cell immune activity. This phase II trial assessed the antitumor activity, ...dose-response relationship, and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
Patients with clear-cell mRCC previously treated with agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway were randomly assigned (blinded ratio of 1:1:1) to nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the dose-response relationship as measured by progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.
A total of 168 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab 0.3- (n = 60), 2- (n = 54), and 10-mg/kg (n = 54) cohorts. One hundred eighteen patients (70%) had received more than one prior systemic regimen. Median PFS was 2.7, 4.0, and 4.2 months, respectively (P = .9). Respective ORRs were 20%, 22%, and 20%. Median OS was 18.2 months (80% CI, 16.2 to 24.0 months), 25.5 months (80% CI, 19.8 to 28.8 months), and 24.7 months (80% CI, 15.3 to 26.0 months), respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse event (AE) was fatigue (24%, 22%, and 35%, respectively). Nineteen patients (11%) experienced grade 3 to 4 treatment-related AEs.
Nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile across the three doses studied in mRCC. No dose-response relationship was detected as measured by PFS. These efficacy and safety results in mRCC support study in the phase III setting.
Summary Background Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, VEGFR, and AXL. The randomised phase 3 METEOR trial compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib versus the ...mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. Here, we report the final overall survival results from this study based on an unplanned second interim analysis. Methods In this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years and older with advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease, and previous treatment with one or more VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to receive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice and web response system. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and the number of previous treatments with VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned patients and has been previously reported. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response in all randomly assigned patients assessed by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The study is closed for enrolment but treatment and follow-up of patients is ongoing for long-term safety evaluation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01865747. Findings Between Aug 8, 2013, and Nov 24, 2014, 658 patients were randomly assigned to receive cabozantinib (n=330) or everolimus (n=328). The median duration of follow-up for overall survival and safety was 18·7 months (IQR 16·1–21·1) in the cabozantinib group and 18·8 months (16·0–21·2) in the everolimus group. Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 18·7–not estimable) with cabozantinib and 16·5 months (14·7–18·8) with everolimus (hazard ratio HR 0·66 95% CI 0·53–0·83; p=0·00026). Cabozantinib treatment also resulted in improved progression-free survival (HR 0·51 95% CI 0·41–0·62; p<0·0001) and objective response (17% 13–22 with cabozantinib vs 3% 2–6 with everolimus; p<0·0001) per independent radiology review among all randomised patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (49 15% in the cabozantinib group vs 12 4% in the everolimus group), diarrhoea (43 13% vs 7 2%), fatigue (36 11% vs 24 7%), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (27 8% vs 3 1%), anaemia (19 6% vs 53 17%), hyperglycaemia (3 1% vs 16 5%), and hypomagnesaemia (16 5% vs none). Serious adverse events grade 3 or worse occurred in 130 (39%) patients in the cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group. One treatment-related death occurred in the cabozantinib group (death; not otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneumonia aspiration). Interpretation Treatment with cabozantinib increased overall survival, delayed disease progression, and improved the objective response compared with everolimus. Based on these results, cabozantinib should be considered as a new standard-of-care treatment option for previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients should be monitored for adverse events that might require dose modifications. Funding Exelixis Inc.
Despite advances in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), there is an unmet need for options to address disease progression during or after treatment with immune ...checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib are active as monotherapies in RCC; thus, we aimed to evaluate the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in these patients.
We report results of the metastatic RCC cohort from an open-label phase 1b/2 study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients aged at least 18 years with selected solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1. Oral lenvatinib at 20 mg was given once daily along with intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg once every 3 weeks. Patients remained on study drug treatment until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Efficacy was analysed in patients with clear cell metastatic RCC receiving study drug by previous therapy grouping: treatment naive, previously treated ICI naive (previously treated with at least one line of therapy but not with an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 ICI), and ICI pretreated (ie, anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1) patients. Safety was analysed in all enrolled and treated patients. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate at week 24 per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (irRECIST) by investigator assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02501096) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT2017-000300-26), and is closed to new participants.
Between July 21, 2015, and Oct 16, 2019, 145 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients had non-clear cell RCC and were excluded from the efficacy analysis (one in the treatment-naive group and one in the ICI-pretreated group); thus, the population evaluated for efficacy comprised 143 patients (n=22 in the treatment-naive group, n=17 in the previously treated ICI-naive group, and n=104 in the ICI-pretreated group). All 145 enrolled patients were included in the safety analysis. The median follow-up was 19·8 months (IQR 14·3–28·4). The number of patients with an objective response at week 24 by irRECIST was 16 (72·7%, 95% CI 49·8–89·3) of 22 treatment-naive patients, seven (41·2%, 18·4–67·1) of 17 previously treated ICI-naive patients, and 58 (55·8%, 45·7–65·5) of 104 ICI-pretreated patients. Of 145 patients, 82 (57%) had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events and ten (7%) had grade 4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (30 21% of 145 patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 36 (25%) patients, and there were three treatment-related deaths (upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sudden death, and pneumonia).
Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed encouraging antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile and might be an option for post-ICI treatment of metastatic RCC.
Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.
What next for treatment? Motzer, Robert J
Nature (London),
09/2016, Letnik:
537, Številka:
7620
Journal Article
Recenzirano
As a medical oncologist who is dedicated to the care of patients with advanced kidney cancer and bettering outcomes through clinical research, I am frequently asked 'What are the unmet needs for the ...treatment of advanced kidney cancer?'
Summary Background Currently, metastatic renal cell carcinoma is treated with sequential single agents targeting VEGF or mTOR. Here, we aimed to assess lenvatinib, everolimus, or their combination as ...second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods We did a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial at 37 centres in five countries and enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma. We included patients who had received treatment with a VEGF-targeted therapy and progressed on or within 9 months of stopping that agent. Patients were randomised via an interactive voice response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to either lenvatinib (24 mg/day), everolimus (10 mg/day), or lenvatinib plus everolimus (18 mg/day and 5 mg/day, respectively) administered orally in continuous 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The randomisation procedure dynamically minimised imbalances between treatment groups for the stratification factors haemoglobin and corrected serum calcium. The primary objective was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is closed to enrolment but patients' treatment and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01136733. Findings Between March 16, 2012, and June 19, 2013, 153 patients were randomly allocated to receive either the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus (n=51), single-agent lenvatinib (n=52), or single-agent everolimus (n=50). Lenvatinib plus everolimus significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (median 14·6 months 95% CI 5·9–20·1 vs 5·5 months 3·5–7·1; hazard ratio HR 0·40, 95% CI 0·24–0·68; p=0·0005), but not compared with lenvatinib alone (7·4 months 95% CI 5·6–10·2; HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·30–1·10; p=0·12). Single-agent lenvatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·38–0·98; p=0·048). Grade 3 and 4 events occurred in fewer patients allocated single-agent everolimus (25 50%) compared with those assigned lenvatinib alone (41 79%) or lenvatinib plus everolimus (36 71%). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in patients allocated lenvatinib plus everolimus was diarrhoea (ten 20%), in those assigned single-agent lenvatinib it was proteinuria (ten 19%), and in those assigned single-agent everolimus it was anaemia (six 12%). Two deaths were deemed related to study drug, one cerebral haemorrhage in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group and one myocardial infarction with single-agent lenvatinib. Interpretation Lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib alone resulted in a progression-free survival benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed after one previous VEGF-targeted therapy. Further study of lenvatinib is warranted in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Funding Eisai Inc.
PDF
