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.
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.
Abstract Background The skeleton and liver are frequently involved sites of metastasis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Objective To analyze outcomes based on the presence of ...bone metastases (BMs) and/or liver metastases (LMs) in patients with RCC treated with targeted therapy. Design, setting, and participants We conducted a review from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) of 2027 patients with metastatic RCC. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis We analyzed the impact of the site of metastasis on overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment failure. Statistical analyses were performed using multivariable Cox regression. Results and limitations The presence of BMs was 34% overall, and when stratified by IMDC risk groups was 27%, 33%, and 43% in the favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups, respectively ( p < 0.001). The presence of LMs was 19% overall and higher in the poor-risk patients (23%) compared with the favorable- or intermediate-risk groups (17%) ( p = 0.003). When patients were classified into four groups based on the presence of BMs and/or LMs, the hazard ratio, adjusted for IMDC risk factors, was 1.4 (95% confidence interval CI, 1.22–1.62) for BMs, 1.42 (95% CI, 1.17–1.73) for LMs, and 1.82 (95% CI, 1.47–2.26) for both BMs and LMs compared with other metastatic sites ( p < 0.0001). The prediction model performance for OS was significantly improved when BMs and LMs were added to the IMDC prognostic model (likelihood ratio test p < 0.0001). Data in this analysis were collected retrospectively. Conclusions The presence of BMs and LMs in patients treated with targeted agents has a negative impact on survival. Patients with BMs and/or LMs may benefit from earlier inclusion on clinical trials of novel agents or combination-based therapies.
The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown.
In this phase 3, ...double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization.
Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing.
Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.).
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.
There are no robust data on prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) -targeted ...therapy.
Baseline characteristics and outcomes on 645 patients with anti-VEGF therapy-naïve metastatic RCC were collected from three US and four Canadian cancer centers. Cox proportional hazards regression, followed by bootstrap validation, was used to identify independent prognostic factors for OS.
The median OS for the whole cohort was 22 months (95% CI, 20.2 to 26.5 months), and the median follow-up was 24.5 months. Overall, 396, 200, and 49 patients were treated with sunitinib, sorafenib, and bevacizumab, respectively. Four of the five adverse prognostic factors according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) were independent predictors of short survival: hemoglobin less than the lower limit of normal (P < .0001), corrected calcium greater than the upper limit of normal (ULN; P = .0006), Karnofsky performance status less than 80% (P < .0001), and time from diagnosis to treatment of less than 1 year (P = .01). In addition, neutrophils greater than the ULN (P < .0001) and platelets greater than the ULN (P = .01) were independent adverse prognostic factors. Patients were segregated into three risk categories: the favorable-risk group (no prognostic factors; n = 133), in which median OS (mOS) was not reached and 2-year OS (2y OS) was 75%; the intermediate-risk group (one or two prognostic factors; n = 301), in which mOS was 27 months and 2y OS was 53%; and the poor-risk group (three to six prognostic factors; n = 152), in which mOS was 8.8 months and 2y OS was 7% (log-rank P < .0001). The C-index was 0.73.
This model validates components of the MSKCC model with the addition of platelet and neutrophil counts and can be incorporated into patient care and into clinical trials that use VEGF-targeted agents.
Purpose Vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy is a standard of care in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the era of novel agents ...remains poorly defined. Materials and Methods We retrospectively reviewed baseline characteristics and outcomes of 314 patients with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy naïve, metastatic renal cell carcinoma from United States and Canadian cancer centers to study the impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy on overall survival. Results Patients who underwent cytoreductive nephrectomy (201) were younger (p <0.01), and more likely to have a better Karnofsky performance status (p <0.01), more than 1 site of metastasis (p = 0.04) and lower corrected calcium levels (p <0.01) compared to those who did not undergo cytoreductive nephrectomy (113). On univariable analysis cytoreductive nephrectomy was associated with a median overall survival of 19.8 months compared to 9.4 months for patients who did not undergo cytoreductive nephrectomy (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.32, 0.59; p <0.01). On multivariable analysis and adjusting for established prognostic risk factors the overall survival difference persisted (adjusted HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46, 0.99; p = 0.04) in favor of the cytoreductive nephrectomy group. In subgroup analyses stratified for favorable/intermediate/poor risk criteria, patients in the poor risk group had a marginal benefit (p = 0.06). Similarly patients with Karnofsky performance status less than 80% also had a marginal survival benefit (p = 0.08). Conclusions In this retrospective study cytoreductive nephrectomy was independently associated with a prolonged overall survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor targeted agents, although the benefit is marginal in those patients with poor risk features.
The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has evolved rapidly over the last decade. Recent combination approaches heralded by targeting immune checkpoints cytotoxic T-lymphocyte ...antigen 4 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) have been followed in consecutive years by protocols targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, PD-1, and programmed death ligand-1. The differences in baseline patient characteristics, statistical plans, follow-up length, biomarker-derived approaches, and trial design make cross-trial comparisons difficult. Given the regulatory approval of a number of these regimens, the current available evidence is reviewed herein for combination first-line regimens with published randomized phase 3 trial data.
Combination approaches have transformed outcomes for patients. Durable disease control and prolonged overall survival have been achieved by both doublet immune checkpoint blockade and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor plus PD-1 blockade. Rationale for variations in trial outcome are offered, alongside approaches to navigating patient-empowered treatment selection, focusing on predictive tools, biomarkers, and the role of real-world data.
Advances in the genomic, molecular, and immunologic understanding of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma have lifted the survival curves for this disease markedly in recent years. Combination approaches will remain standard of care in the first-line setting. However, thoughtful study design is needed to accurately estimate outcomes and integrate novel approaches into the treatment armamentarium.
Abstract Background Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), if elevated, is associated with worse outcomes in several malignancies. Objective Investigation of NLR at baseline and during therapy for ...metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Design, setting, and participants Retrospective analysis of 1199 patients from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC cohort) and 4350 patients from 12 prospective randomized trials (validation cohort). Intervention Targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis NLR was examined at baseline and 6 (± 2) wk later. A landmark analysis at 8 wk was conducted to explore the prognostic value of relative NLR change on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate using Cox or logistic regression models, adjusted for variables in IMDC score and NLR values at baseline. Results and limitations Higher NLR at baseline was associated with shorter OS and PFS (Hazard Ratios HR per 1 unit increase in log-transformed NLR = 1.69 95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.46–1.95 and 1.30 95% CI = 1.15–1.48, respectively). Compared with no change (decrease < 25% to increase < 25%, reference), increase NLR at Week 6 by 25–50% and > 75% was associated with poor OS (HR = 1.55 95% CI = 1.10–2.18 and 2.31 95% CI = 1.64–3.25, respectively), poor PFS (HR = 1.46 95% CI = 1.04–2.03, 1.76 95% CI = 1.23–2.52, respectively), and reduced objective response rate (odds ratios = 0.77 95% CI = 0.37–1.63 and 0.24 95% CI = 0.08–0.72, respectively). By contrast, a decrease of 25–50% was associated with improved outcomes. Findings were confirmed in the validation cohort. The study is limited by its retrospective design. Conclusions Compared with no change, early decline of NLR is associated with favorable outcomes, whereas an increase is associated with worse outcomes. Patient summary We found that the proportion of immune cells in the blood is of prognostic value, namely that a decrease of the proportion of neutrophils-to-lymphocytes is associated with more favorable outcomes while an increase had the opposite effect.
PDF
