Explore the vast range of titles available.

Among 886 patients with advanced renal-cell cancer, median progression-free survival was 13.8 months among those assigned to avelumab plus axitinib and 7.2 months among those assigned to sunitinib. Toxic effects of grade 3 or higher were similar in the two groups.

The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been transformed with the advent of antiangiogenics, notably tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Both treatment options have improved outcomes of patients and modified the natural history of mRCC. Clinical investigations have focused on evaluating combination regimens containing ICIs and VEGFR-directed TKIs. Namely, the combinations of axitinib plus pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-426) and axitinib plus avelumab (JAVELIN RENAL 101) have shown improved outcomes compared with sunitinib in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. In this review, we discuss the clinical data of single-agent TKIs and ICIs in mRCC and the rationale for the combination ICIs and TKIs based on preclinical and clinical evidence. We also explore the current challenges for regimen selection and development of predictive biomarkers.

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. Biomarker analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial uncovers molecular determinants of therapy-specific outcomes, which may inform personalized treatment strategies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have become a new standard of care in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The rationale for these combinations relies on the interplay between the immune and angiogenic systems. The angiogenic factors and their receptors can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment by a direct effect on the innate immune cells and adaptive immune cells, and by an indirect effect through their influence on endothelial cells. Antiangiogenic therapies counteract these immunosuppressive effects by increasing tumor infiltration of mature dendritic cells and effector T cells, and decreasing tumor infiltration of immunosuppressive cells such as regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells. The immunomodulatory properties of antiangiogenic therapies combined with ICIs may provide enhanced activity through various mechanisms of action. Different associations with ICIs such as programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors and antiangiogenic therapies such as VEGFR-TKI or bevacizumab have been tested and led to the approval of pembrolizumab plus axitinib and avelumab plus axitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced RCC. Other VEGFR axis inhibitors and ICI combinations are currently being tested with promising results. More combinations of immune agents, including cancer vaccines and immunostimulatory agents, are also being evaluated in association with VEGFR-TKI. Defining the best combination for each patient as well as the optimal therapeutic sequence will be essential to guide treatment decisions in clinical practice.

Immunotherapy-based combinations including pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib are the standard of care for patients with first-line clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, but these combinations are not well characterised in non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. KEYNOTE-B61 is a single-arm, phase 2 trial being conducted at 48 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, South Korea, Russia, Spain, Türkiye, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated stage IV non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher were eligible for enrolment. All enrolled patients received pembrolizumab 400 mg intravenously every 6 weeks for up to 18 cycles (2 years) plus lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal; lenvatinib could be continued beyond 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response as per adjusted Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) assessed by independent central review. Activity and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment (the as-treated population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04704219) and is no longer recruiting participants but is ongoing. Between Feb 23, 2021, and Jan 21, 2022, 215 patients were screened; 158 were enrolled and received treatment. Median age at baseline was 60 years (IQR 52–69), 112 (71%) of 158 patients were male, 46 (29%) were female, 128 (81%) were White, 12 (8%) were Asian, three (2%) were Black or African American, and 15 (9%) were missing data on race. As of data cutoff (Nov 7, 2022), median study follow-up was 14·9 months (IQR 11·1–17·4). 78 of 158 patients had a confirmed objective response (49%; 95% CI 41–57), including nine (6%) patients with a confirmed complete response and 69 (44%) with a confirmed partial response. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 81 (51%) of 158 patients, the most common of which were hypertension (37 [23%] of 158), proteinuria (seven [4%]), and stomatitis (six [4%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 31 (20%) of 158 patients. Eight (5%) patients died due to adverse events, none of which was considered related to the treatment by the investigators (one each of cardiac failure, peritonitis, pneumonia, sepsis, cerebrovascular accident, suicide, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism). Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has durable antitumour activity in patients with previously untreated advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that of previous studies. Results from KEYNOTE-B61 support the use of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for these patients. Merck Sharp & Dohme (a subsidiary of Merck & Co, NJ, USA), and Eisai.

Immune modulatory treatment regimens, led by immune checkpoint inhibitors, have transformed the treatment of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. First-in-class, the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab improved overall survival in advanced renal cell carcinoma following prior anti-angiogenic therapy, an important shift in the management of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Further improvements of long-term outcomes will be driven by combinations in the first-line setting, including PD-1/PD-L1 associated with antiangiogenic therapies, or PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors with other immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-CTLA-4, anti-LAG-3 or TIM-3 targeted therapies. The first two randomized Phase 3 trials assessing these combinations have now challenged sunitinib in first-line setting. First, the CheckMate 214 trial demonstrated an objective response rate and overall survival benefit for the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the intermediate- and poor-risk patients. Second, the IMMotion 151 study demonstrated a progression-free survival benefit for the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combination by investigator assessment. Further Phase 3 trials are awaited with tyrosine kinase and immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors are also actively investigated in the localized adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. Nevertheless, the search for biomarkers along with new clinical trial designs will be crucial to better select the patients that may derive the greatest benefit from these advances. The continuing improvement of antitumor immunity comprehension and the emergence of new immune modulatory treatments will deeply change the management of renal cell carcinoma for the years to come.

Similar to melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been historically considered as an immunogenic tumor, with interleukin 2 (IL-2) and interferon alpha (IFN-α) being the first approved treatments in the 1990s. However, these therapies were effective in only 10–20% of cases and were not well tolerated. Recently, new insights on the interaction between the immune system and tumor have identified the programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway to be a key player in evading host immune responses. The strategy of immune checkpoint blockade is to reduce inhibitory signaling and restore the patient’s natural tumor-specific T-cell-mediated immune responses. Nivolumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor to have gained approval for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma, squamous and nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Hodgkin disease and recently RCC. In this review, we discuss results from studies of nivolumab in RCC, clinical experience with this agent, and its future development.

With the recent approval of the combinations of axitinib with the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) pembrolizumab or avelumab for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, guidance on how to distinguish between immune-related adverse events (AEs) caused by ICI versus axitinib-related AEs is necessary to optimise therapy with axitinib–ICI combinations. The recommendations here are based on (1) systematic review of published evidence, (2) discussion among experts in the field and (3) a survey to obtain expert consensus on specific measures for therapy management with the combinations axitinib/avelumab and axitinib/pembrolizumab. The experts identified areas of AEs requiring unique management during treatment with axitinib–ICI combinations that were not covered by current recommendations. Diarrhoea, hepatic toxicity, fatigue and cardiovascular AEs were found to be applicable to such specialised management. Triage between immune-suppressive and supportive measures is a key component in therapy management. Clinical monitoring and experience with both classes of agents are necessary to manage this novel therapeutic approach. We focused on AEs with an overlap between axitinib and ICI therapy. Our recommendations address AE management of axitinib–ICI combinations with the aim to improve the safety of these therapies.

Results from large randomised controlled trials combining docetaxel or bisphosphonates with standard of care in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer have emerged. In order to investigate the effects of these therapies and to respond to emerging evidence, we aimed to systematically review all relevant trials using a framework for adaptive meta-analysis. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, conference proceedings, review articles, and reference lists of trial publications for all relevant randomised controlled trials (published, unpublished, and ongoing) comparing either standard of care with or without docetaxel or standard of care with or without bisphosphonates for men with high-risk localised or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For each trial, we extracted hazard ratios (HRs) of the effects of docetaxel or bisphosphonates on survival (time from randomisation until death from any cause) and failure-free survival (time from randomisation to biochemical or clinical failure or death from any cause) from published trial reports or presentations or obtained them directly from trial investigators. HRs were combined using the fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenzsel). We identified five eligible randomised controlled trials of docetaxel in men with metastatic (M1) disease. Results from three (CHAARTED, GETUG-15, STAMPEDE) of these trials (2992 [93%] of 3206 men randomised) showed that the addition of docetaxel to standard of care improved survival. The HR of 0·77 (95% CI 0·68–0·87; p<0·0001) translates to an absolute improvement in 4-year survival of 9% (95% CI 5–14). Docetaxel in addition to standard of care also improved failure-free survival, with the HR of 0·64 (0·58–0·70; p<0·0001) translating into a reduction in absolute 4-year failure rates of 16% (95% CI 12–19). We identified 11 trials of docetaxel for men with locally advanced disease (M0). Survival results from three (GETUG-12, RTOG 0521, STAMPEDE) of these trials (2121 [53%] of 3978 men) showed no evidence of a benefit from the addition of docetaxel (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·69–1·09]; p=0·218), whereas failure-free survival data from four (GETUG-12, RTOG 0521, STAMPEDE, TAX 3501) of these trials (2348 [59%] of 3978 men) showed that docetaxel improved failure-free survival (0·70 [0·61–0·81]; p<0·0001), which translates into a reduced absolute 4-year failure rate of 8% (5–10). We identified seven eligible randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates for men with M1 disease. Survival results from three of these trials (2740 [88%] of 3109 men) showed that addition of bisphosphonates improved survival (0·88 [0·79–0·98]; p=0·025), which translates to 5% (1–8) absolute improvement, but this result was influenced by the positive result of one trial of sodium clodronate, and we found no evidence of a benefit from the addition of zoledronic acid (0·94 [0·83–1·07]; p=0·323), which translates to an absolute improvement in survival of 2% (−3 to 7). Of 17 trials of bisphosphonates for men with M0 disease, survival results from four trials (4079 [66%] of 6220 men) showed no evidence of benefit from the addition of bisphosphonates (1·03 [0·89–1·18]; p=0·724) or zoledronic acid (0·98 [0·82–1·16]; p=0·782). Failure-free survival definitions were too inconsistent for formal meta-analyses for the bisphosphonate trials. The addition of docetaxel to standard of care should be considered standard care for men with M1 hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who are starting treatment for the first time. More evidence on the effects of docetaxel on survival is needed in the M0 disease setting. No evidence exists to suggest that zoledronic acid improves survival in men with M1 or M0 disease, and any potential benefit is probably small. Medical Research Council UK.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is approved as first-line regimen for intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and nivolumab monotherapy as second-line therapy for all risk groups. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination as an immunotherapeutic boost after no response to nivolumab monotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk and poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma. TITAN-RCC is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, done at 28 hospitals and cancer centres across Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk or poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were formerly untreated (first-line population) or pretreated with one previous systemic therapy (anti-angiogenic or temsirolimus; second-line population) were eligible. Patients had to have a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70 and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). Patients started with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks. On early progressive disease (week 8) or non-response at week 16, patients received two or four doses of intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) boosts (once every 3 weeks), whereas responders continued with intravenous nivolumab (240 mg, once every 2 weeks), but could receive two to four boost doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for subsequent progressive disease. The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study medication; safety was also assessed in this population. An objective response rate of more than 25% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show improvement, on the basis of results from the pivotal phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02917772, and is complete. Between Oct 28, 2016, and Nov 30, 2018, 207 patients were enrolled and all received nivolumab induction (109 patients in the first-line group; 98 patients in the second-line group). 60 (29%) of 207 patients were female and 147 (71%) were male. 147 (71%) of 207 patients had intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma and 51 (25%) had poor-risk disease. After median follow-up of 27·6 months (IQR 10·5–34·8), 39 (36%, 90% CI 28–44; p=0·0080) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 31 (32%, 24–40; p=0·083) of 98 patients in the second-line group had a confirmed objective response for nivolumab with and without nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Confirmed response to nivolumab at week 8 or 16 was observed in 31 (28%) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 18 (18%) of 98 patients in the second-line group. The most frequent grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (reported in ≥5% of patients) were increased lipase (15 [7%] of 207 patients), colitis (13 [6%]), and diarrhoea (13 [6%]). Three deaths were reported that were deemed to be treatment-related: one due to possible ischaemic stroke, one due to respiratory failure, and one due to pneumonia. In treatment-naive patients, nivolumab induction with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts significantly improved the objective response rate compared with that reported for nivolumab monotherapy in the CheckMate-025 trial. However, overall efficacy seemed inferior when compared with approved upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For second-line treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab could be a rescue strategy on progression with approved nivolumab monotherapy. Bristol Myers Squibb.