In metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), recent data have shown efficacy of first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi-nivo) as well as immuno-oncology (IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) ...inhibitor combinations. Comparative data between these strategies are limited.
To compare the efficacy of ipi-nivo versus IO-VEGF (IOVE) combinations in mRCC, and describe practice patterns and effectiveness of second-line therapies.
Using the International Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset, patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo.
All patients received first-line IO combination therapies.
First- and second-line response rates, time to treatment failure (TTF), time to next treatment (TNT), and overall survival (OS) were analysed. Hazard ratios were adjusted for IMDC risk factors.
In total, 113 patients received IOVE combinations and 75 received ipi-nivo. For IOVE combinations versus ipi-nivo, first-line response rates were 33% versus 40% (between-group difference 7%, 95% confidence interval CI –8% to 22%, p = 0.4), TTF was 14.3 versus 10.2 mo (p = 0.2), TNT was 19.7 versus 17.9 mo (p = 0.4), and median OS was immature but not statistically different (p = 0.17). Adjusted hazard ratios for TTF, TNT, and OS were 0.71 (95% CI 0.46–1.12, p = 0.14), 0.65 (95% CI 0.38–1.11, p = 0.11), and 1.74 (95% CI 0.82–3.68, p = 0.14), respectively. Sixty-four (34%) patients received second-line treatment. In patients receiving subsequent VEGF-based therapy, second-line response rates were lower in the IOVE cohort than in the ipi-nivo cohort (15% vs 45%; between-group difference 30%, 95% CI 3–57%, p = 0.04; n = 40), though second-line TTF was not significantly different (3.7 vs 5.4 mo; p = 0.4; n = 55). Limitations include the study’s retrospective design and sample size.
There were no significant differences in first-line outcomes between IOVE combinations and ipi-nivo. Most patients received VEGF-based therapy in the second line. In this group, second-line response rate was greater in patients who received ipi-nivo initially.
There were no significant differences in key first-line outcomes for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma receiving immuno-oncology/vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor combinations versus ipilimumab and nivolumab.
Using the International Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma Database Consortium database, we reviewed 188 patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who received first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi-nivo) versus immuno-oncology/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combinations. There were no significant differences in first-line outcomes between groups. Response rates to second-line VEGF-based treatments were higher in patients who received ipi-nivo.
Purpose This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy. ...Patients and Methods A total of 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade) or ≥ pT3, including N1, clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib or placebo for 1 year; 403 patients received a starting dose of 800 mg or placebo. To address toxicity attrition, the 800-mg starting dose was lowered to 600 mg, and the primary end point analysis was changed to disease-free survival (DFS) for pazopanib 600 mg versus placebo (n = 1,135). Primary analysis was performed after 350 DFS events in the intent-to-treat (ITT) pazopanib 600 mg group (ITT
), and DFS follow-up analysis was performed 12 months later. Secondary end point analyses included DFS with ITT pazopanib 800 mg (ITT
) and safety. Results The primary analysis results of DFS ITT
favored pazopanib but did not show a significant improvement over placebo (hazard ratio HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = .165). The secondary analysis of DFS in ITT
(n = 403) yielded an HR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.94). Follow-up analysis in ITT
yielded an HR of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14). Increased ALT and AST were common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the pazopanib 600 mg (ALT, 16%; AST, 5%) and 800 mg (ALT, 18%; AST, 7%) groups. Conclusion The results of the primary DFS analysis of pazopanib 600 mg showed no benefit over placebo in the adjuvant setting.
Abstract Background The benefit of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for overall survival (OS) is unclear in patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the era of targeted ...therapy. Objective To determine OS benefit of CN compared with no CN in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapies. Design, setting, and participants Retrospective data from patients with synchronous mRCC ( n = 1658) from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were used to compare 982 mRCC patients who had a CN with 676 mRCC patients who did not. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis OS was compared and hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for IMDC poor prognostic criteria. Results and limitations Patients who had CN had better IMDC prognostic profiles versus those without (favorable, intermediate, or poor in 9%, 63%, and 28% vs 1%, 45%, and 54%, respectively). The median OS of patients with CN versus without CN was 20.6 versus 9.5 mo ( p < 0.0001). When adjusted for IMDC criteria to correct for imbalances, the HR of death was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.52–0.69; p < 0.0001). Patients estimated to survive <12 mo may receive marginal benefit from CN. Patients who have four or more of the IMDC prognostic criteria did not benefit from CN. Data were collected retrospectively. Conclusions CN is beneficial in synchronous mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy, even after adjusting for prognostic factors. Patients with estimated survival times <12 mo or four or more IMDC prognostic factors may not benefit from CN. This information may aid in patient selection as we await results from randomized controlled trials. Patient summary We looked at the survival outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients who did or did not have the primary tumor removed. We found that most patients benefited from tumor removal, except for those with four or more IMDC risk factors.
This study demonstrates that the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model continues to risk stratify patients treated with contemporary immunotherapy ...combinations and provides real-world survival and response benchmarks.
The combination of immuno-oncology (IO) agents ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) and vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapies (VEGF-TT) combined with IO (IO-VEGF) are current standard of care first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
To establish real-world clinical benchmarks for IO combination therapies based on the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria.
Patients with mRCC who received first-line IPI-NIVO, IO-VEGF, or VEGF-TT from 2002 to 2021 were identified using the IMDC database and stratified according to IMDC risk groups.
Overall survival (OS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and treatment duration (TD) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between IMDC risk groups within each treatment cohort by the log-rank test. The overall response rate (ORR) was calculated by physician assessment of the best overall response. The primary outcome was OS at 18 mo.
In total, 728 patients received IPI-NIVO, 282 IO-VEGF, and 7163 VEGF-TT. The median follow-up times for patients remaining alive were 14.3 mo for IPI-NIVO, 14.9 mo IO-VEGF, and 34.4 mo for VEGF-TT. OS at 18 mo for favorable, intermediate, and poor risk was, respectively, 90%, 78%, and 50% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 93%, 83%, and 74% for IO-VEGF; and 84%, 64%, and 28% for VEGF-TT. ORRs in favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups were 41.3%, 40.6%, and 33.0% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 60.3%, 56.8%, and 40.9% for IO-VEGF; and 39.3%, 33.5%, and 20.9% for VEGF-TT, respectively. The IMDC model stratified patients into statistically distinct risk groups for the three endpoints of OS, TTNT, and TD within each treatment cohort. Limitations of this study were the retrospective design and short follow-up.
This study demonstrated that the IMDC model continues to risk stratify patients with mRCC treated with contemporary first-line IO combination therapies and provided real-world survival benchmarks.
The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model continues to stratify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving modern combination treatments in the real-world setting.
Summary Background The International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model offers prognostic information for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We tested the accuracy ...of the model in an external population and compared it with other prognostic models. Methods We included patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were treated with first-line VEGF-targeted treatment at 13 international cancer centres and who were registered in the Consortium's database but had not contributed to the initial development of the Consortium Database model. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We compared the Database Consortium model with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) model, the International Kidney Cancer Working Group (IKCWG) model, the French model, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model by concordance indices and other measures of model fit. Findings Overall, 1028 patients were included in this study, of whom 849 had complete data to assess the Database Consortium model. Median overall survival was 18·8 months (95% 17·6–21·4). The predefined Database Consortium risk factors (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, hypercalcaemia, Karnofsky performance status <80%, and <1 year from diagnosis to treatment) were independent predictors of poor overall survival in the external validation set (hazard ratios ranged between 1·27 and 2·08, concordance index 0·71, 95% CI 0·68–0·73). When patients were segregated into three risk categories, median overall survival was 43·2 months (95% CI 31·4–50·1) in the favourable risk group (no risk factors; 157 patients), 22·5 months (18·7–25·1) in the intermediate risk group (one to two risk factors; 440 patients), and 7·8 months (6·5–9·7) in the poor risk group (three or more risk factors; 252 patients; p<0·0001; concordance index 0·664, 95% CI 0·639–0·689). 672 patients had complete data to test all five models. The concordance index of the CCF model was 0·662 (95% CI 0·636–0·687), of the French model 0·640 (0·614–0·665), of the IKCWG model 0·668 (0·645–0·692), and of the MSKCC model 0·657 (0·632–0·682). The reported versus predicted number of deaths at 2 years was most similar in the Database Consortium model compared with the other models. Interpretation The Database Consortium model is now externally validated and can be applied to stratify patients by risk in clinical trials and to counsel patients about prognosis. Funding None.
Pulmonary fibrosis (PF) is a form of chronic lung disease characterized by pathologic epithelial remodeling and accumulation of extracellular matrix (ECM). To comprehensively define the cell types, ...mechanisms, and mediators driving fibrotic remodeling in lungs with PF, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing of single-cell suspensions from 10 nonfibrotic control and 20 PF lungs. Analysis of 114,396 cells identified 31 distinct cell subsets/states. We report that a remarkable shift in epithelial cell phenotypes occurs in the peripheral lung in PF and identify several previously unrecognized epithelial cell phenotypes, including a
/
pathologic, ECM-producing epithelial cell population that was highly enriched in PF lungs. Multiple fibroblast subtypes were observed to contribute to ECM expansion in a spatially discrete manner. Together, these data provide high-resolution insights into the complexity and plasticity of the distal lung epithelium in human disease and indicate a diversity of epithelial and mesenchymal cells contribute to pathologic lung fibrosis.
Summary Background Previous prognostic models for second-line systemic therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma have not been studied in the setting of targeted therapy. We sought to ...validate the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving next-line targeted therapy after progression on first-line targeted therapy. Methods In this population-based study, we analysed patients who received second-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma at 19 centres in Canada, USA, Greece, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Denmark. The primary endpoint was overall survival since the initiation of second-line therapy. We compared the prognostic performance of the IMDC model with the three-factor MSKCC model used for previously treated patients for overall survival since the start of second-line targeted therapy. Findings Between Jan 1, 2005, and Nov 30, 2012, we included 1021 patients treated with second-line targeted therapy. Median overall survival since the start of second-line targeted therapy was 12·5 months (95% CI 11·3–14·3). Five of six predefined factors in the IMDC model (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, Karnofsky performance status KPS <80, and <1 year from diagnosis to first-line targeted therapy) were independent predictors of poor overall survival on multivariable analysis. The concordance index using all six prognostic factors (ie, also including hypercalcaemia) was 0·70 (95% CI 0·67–0·72) with the IMDC model and was 0·66 (95% CI 0·64–0·68) with the three-factor MSKCC model. When patients were divided into three risk categories using IMDC criteria, median overall survival was 35·3 months (95% CI 28·3–47·8) in the favourable risk group (n=76), 16·6 months (14·9–17·9) in the intermediate risk group (n=529), and 5·4 months (4·7–6·8) in the poor risk group (n=261). Interpretation The IMDC prognostic model can be applied to patients previously treated with targeted therapy, in addition to previously validated populations in first-line targeted therapy. The IMDC prognostic model in the second-line targeted therapy setting has an improved prognostic performance and is applicable to a more contemporary patient cohort than that of the three-factor MSKCC model. Funding DF/HCC Kidney Cancer SPORE P50 CA101942-01, Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada, Canadian Institute for Health Research, Trust Family, Loker Pinard, Michael Brigham, and Gerald DeWulf.
Summary Background Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder have poor survival after cystectomy. The EORTC 30994 trial aimed to compare immediate versus deferred ...cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3–pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Methods This intergroup, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial recruited patients from hospitals across Europe and Canada. Eligible patients had histologically proven urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, pT3–pT4 disease or node positive (pN1–3) M0 disease after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy, with no evidence of any microscopic residual disease. Within 90 days of cystectomy, patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to either immediate adjuvant chemotherapy (four cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin, high-dose methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin high-dose MVAC, or MVAC) or six cycles of deferred chemotherapy at relapse, with stratification for institution, pT category, and lymph node status according to the number of nodes dissected. Neither patients nor investigators were masked. Overall survival was the primary endpoint; all analyses were by intention to treat. The trial was closed after recruitment of 284 of the planned 660 patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00028756. Findings From April 29, 2002, to Aug 14, 2008, 284 patients were randomly assigned (141 to immediate treatment and 143 to deferred treatment), and followed up until the data cutoff of Aug 21, 2013. After a median follow-up of 7·0 years (IQR 5·2–8·7), 66 (47%) of 141 patients in the immediate treatment group had died compared with 82 (57%) of 143 in the deferred treatment group. No significant improvement in overall survival was noted with immediate treatment when compared with deferred treatment (adjusted HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·56–1·08; p=0·13). Immediate treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with deferred treatment (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·4–0·73, p<0·0001), with 5-year progression-free survival of 47·6% (95% CI 38·8–55·9) in the immediate treatment group and 31·8% (24·2–39·6) in the deferred treatment group. Grade 3–4 myelosuppression was reported in 33 (26%) of 128 patients who received treatment in the immediate chemotherapy group versus 24 (35%) of 68 patients who received treatment in the deferred chemotherapy group, neutropenia occurred in 49 (38%) versus 36 (53%) patients, respectively, and thrombocytopenia in 36 (28%) versus 26 (38%). Two patients died due to toxicity, one in each group. Interpretation Our data did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. However, the trial is limited in power, and it is possible that some subgroups of patients might still benefit from immediate chemotherapy. An updated individual patient data meta-analysis and biomarker research are needed to further elucidate the potential for survival benefit in subgroups of patients. Funding Lilly, Canadian Cancer Society Research.
Abstract Background The use of third-line targeted therapy (TTT) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is not well characterized and varies due to the lack of robust data to guide treatment ...decisions. This study examined the use of third-line therapy in a large international population. Objective To evaluate the use and efficacy of targeted therapy in a third-line setting. Design, setting, and participants Twenty-five international cancer centers provided consecutive data on 4824 mRCC patients who were treated with an approved targeted therapy. One thousand and twelve patients (21%) received TTT and were included in the analysis. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Patients were analyzed for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival using Kaplan-Meier curves, and were evaluated for overall response. Cox regression analyses were used to determine the statistical association between OS and the six factors included in the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic model. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients stratified by their IMDC prognostic risk status. Results and limitations Everolimus was the most prevalent third-line therapy (27.5%), but sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, temsirolimus, and axitinib were all utilized in over ≥9% of patients. Patients receiving any TTT had an OS of 12.4 mo, a progression-free survival of 3.9 mo, and 61.1% of patients experienced an overall response of stable disease or better. Patients not receiving TTT had an OS of 2.1 mo. Patients with favorable- (7.2%) or intermediate-risk (65.3%) disease had the highest OS with TTT, 29.9 mo and 15.5 mo, respectively, while poor-risk (27.5%) patients survived 5.5 mo. Results are limited by the retrospective nature of the study. Conclusions TTT remains highly heterogeneous. The IMDC prognostic criteria can be used to stratify third-line patients. TTT use in favorable- and intermediate-risk patients was associated with the greatest OS. Patient summary Patients with favorable- and intermediate-prognostic criteria disease treated with third-line targeted therapy have an associated longer overall survival compared with those with poor risk disease.
Abstract Background Sunitinib (SU) and pazopanib (PZ) are standards of care for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, how the efficacy of these drugs translates ...into effectiveness on a population-based level is unknown. Patients and methods We used the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and performed proportional hazard regression adjusting for IMDC prognostic groups. Second-line OS (OS2) and second-line PFS (PFS2) were also evaluated. Results We obtained data from 7438 patients with mRCC treated with either first-line SU (n = 6519) or PZ (n = 919) with an overall median follow-up of 40.4 months (95% confidence interval CI 39.2–42.1). There were no significant differences in IMDC prognostic groups (p = 0.36). There was no OS difference between SU and PZ (22.3 versus 22.6 months, respectively, p = 0.65). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the hazard ratio (HR) of death for PZ versus SU was 1.03 (95% CI 0.92–1.17, p = 0.58). There was no PFS difference between SU and PZ (8.4 versus 8.3 months, respectively, p = 0.17). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the HR for PFS for PZ versus SU was 1.08 (95% CI 0.981–1.19, p = 0.12). There was no difference in RR between SU and PZ (30% versus 28%, respectively, p = 0.15). We also found no difference in any second-line treatment between either post-SU or post-PZ groups for OS2 (13.1 versus 11 months, p = 0.27) and PFS2 (3.7 versus 5.0 months, p = 0.07). Conclusions We confirmed in real-world practice that SU and PZ have similar efficacy in the first-line setting for mRCC and do not affect outcomes with subsequent second-line treatment.
PDF
