Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the ongoing phase 3, CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with intermediate or poor risk, previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could be used to further describe the benefit-risk profile of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. In the phase 3, randomised, controlled, CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by risk status into favourable, intermediate, and poor risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg/day for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), and EuroQol five dimensional three level (EQ-5D-3L) instruments. The coprimary endpoints of the trial, reported previously, were overall survival, progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients who had an objective response in those categorised as at intermediate or poor risk. PROs in all randomised participants were assessed as an exploratory endpoint; here we report this exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but is now closed to recruitment. Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 847 (77%) were at intermediate or poor risk and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=425) or sunitinib (n=422). Median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 23·0–27·4). PROs were more favourable with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib throughout the first 103 weeks after baseline, with mean change from baseline at week 103 for FKSI-19 total score being 4·00 (95% CI 1·91 to 6·09) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus −3·14 (−6·03 to −0·25) for sunitinib (p<0·0001), and for FACT-G total score being 4·77 (1·73 to 7·82) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus −4·32 (−8·54 to −0·11) for sunitinib (p=0·0005). Significant differences were also seen for four of five FKSI-19 domains (disease-related symptoms, physical disease-related symptoms, treatment side-effects, and functional wellbeing) and FACT-G physical and functional wellbeing domains. However, there was no significant difference between the treatment groups at week 103 in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue rating scale (VAS) scores, with mean change from baseline to week 103 of 10·07 (95% CI 4·35 to 15·80) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6·40 (−1·36 to 14·16) for sunitinib (p=0·45). Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab reduced risk of deterioration in FKSI-19 total score (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·46–0·63), FACT-G total score (0·63, 0·52–0·75), and EQ-5D-3L VAS score (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63–0·89) and UK utility scores (0·67, 0·57–0·80). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab leads to fewer symptoms and better HRQoL than sunitinib in patients at intermediate or poor risk with advanced renal cell carcinoma. These results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib comes with the additional benefit of improved HRQoL. Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Insights into the biology of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) and the development of agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway have positively impacted the outcomes for patients with aRCC. With the recent approval of the dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), nivolumab and ipilimumab, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the era of VEGF monotherapy for untreated aRCC appears to be coming to an end for patients with access to the combination therapy. The frontline treatment options for renal cell carcinoma are evolving rapidly and will lead to the approval of other combination immunotherapies-especially those with VEGF inhibitors. Here we review the clinical data for dual immune checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as well as the emerging data for ICI plus VEGF inhibitor combinations and discuss the challenges these will pose for the clinical practitioner.

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. 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. 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). 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. Exelixis Inc.

BACKGROUNDMetastases are the hallmark of lethal cancer, though underlying mechanisms that drive metastatic spread to specific organs remain poorly understood. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is known to have distinct sites of metastases, with lung, bone, liver, and lymph nodes being more common than brain, gastrointestinal tract, and endocrine glands. Previous studies have shown varying clinical behavior and prognosis associated with the site of metastatic spread; however, little is known about the molecular underpinnings that contribute to the differential outcomes observed by the site of metastasis.METHODSWe analyzed primary renal tumors and tumors derived from metastatic sites to comprehensively characterize genomic and transcriptomic features of tumor cells as well as to evaluate the tumor microenvironment at both sites.RESULTSWe included a total of 657 tumor samples (340 from the primary site [kidney] and 317 from various sites of metastasis). We show distinct genomic alterations, transcriptomic signatures, and immune and stromal tumor microenvironments across metastatic sites in a large cohort of patients with RCC.CONCLUSIONWe demonstrate significant heterogeneity among primary tumors and metastatic sites and elucidate the complex interplay between tumor cells and the extrinsic tumor microenvironment that is vital for developing effective anticancer therapies.

Objective Molecular imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) provides a powerful means of identifying and characterizing cancerous processes, as well as providing a quantitative framework within which response to therapy can be ascertained. Unfortunately, the most commonly used PET radiotracer, 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), has not demonstrated a definitive role in determining response to therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). As a result, new radiotracers able to reliably image RCC could be of tremendous value for this purpose. Methods Five patients with known metastatic RCC were imaged with the low-molecular weight radiotracer 18 F-DCFPyL, an inhibitor of the prostate-specific membrane antigen at 60 min post injection. 18 F-DCFPyL PET/CT and conventional images (either contrast-enhanced computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) were centrally reviewed for suspected sites of disease. Results In all five patients imaged, sites of putative metastatic disease were readily identifiable by abnormal 18 F-DCFPyL uptake, with overall more lesions detected than on conventional imaging. These PET-detected sites included lymph nodes, pancreatic parenchymal lesions, lung parenchymal lesions, a brain parenchymal lesion, and other soft tissue sites. 18 F-DCFPyL uptake ranged from subtle to intense with maximum standardized uptake values (SUV max ) for the identified lesions of 1.6–19.3. Based upon this small patient series, limited pathology and imaging follow-up of these patients suggests a higher sensitivity for 18 F-DCFPyL compared to conventional imaging in the detection of metastatic RCC (94.7 versus 78.9 %). Conclusions PSMA expression in the tumor neovasculature of RCC has been previously established and is believed to provide the basis for the imaging findings presented here. PSMA-based PET/CT with radiotracers such as 18 F-DCFPyL may allow more accurate staging of patients with RCC and conceivably the ability to predict and follow therapy in patients treated with agents targeting the neovasculature.

Background Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs has shown encouraging preliminary antitumor activity across various tumor types including advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors or ipilimumab. Long-term outcomes from this study for the combination of nivolumab plus sunitinib or pazopanib in aRCC are presented. Methods Patients with aRCC received nivolumab plus either sunitinib (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on/2 weeks off; N + S) or pazopanib (800 mg/day; N + P) until progression/unacceptable toxicity. The nivolumab starting dose was 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, with planned escalation to 5 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; antitumor activity was a secondary endpoint. Results Arm N + S enrolled 33 patients, 19 of whom were treatment-naïve; this arm advanced to the expansion phase. Median follow-up was 50.0 months. Patients experienced high frequencies of adverse events (AEs) including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (82%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (39%). Investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) was 55% (18/33) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.7 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Arm N + P enrolled 20 patients, all had ≥1 prior systemic therapy; this arm was closed due to dose-limiting toxicities and did not proceed to expansion. Median follow-up was 27.1 months. Patients treated with N + P experienced high frequencies of AEs including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (70%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (25%). Investigator-assessed ORR was 45% (9/20) and median PFS was 7.2 months. Median OS was 27.9 months. Conclusions The addition of standard doses of sunitinib or pazopanib to nivolumab resulted in a high incidence of high-grade toxicities limiting future development of either combination regimen. While there was no adverse impact on response and the OS outcome was notable, the findings suggest that the success of combination regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs may be dependent on careful selection of the antiangiogenic component and dose. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01472081 . Registered 16 November 2011.

Molecular profiling of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) tumors of patients in a clinical trial has identified distinct transcriptomic signatures with predictive value, yet data in non-clear cell variants (nccRCC) are lacking. We examined the transcriptional profiles of RCC tumors representing key molecular pathways, from a multi-institutional, real-world patient cohort, including ccRCC and centrally reviewed nccRCC samples. ccRCC had increased angiogenesis signature scores compared with the heterogeneous group of nccRCC tumors, while cell cycle, fatty acid oxidation/AMPK signaling, and fatty acid synthesis/pentose phosphate signature scores were increased in one or more nccRCC subtypes. Among both ccRCC and nccRCC tumors, T effector scores statistically correlated with increased immune cell infiltration and were more commonly associated with immunotherapy-related markers (PD-L1+/TMBhi/MSIhi). In conclusion, this study provides evidence of differential gene transcriptional profiles among ccRCC versus nccRCC tumors, providing insights for optimizing personalized and histology-specific therapeutic strategies for patients with advanced RCC.

The approval of immunotherapeutic agents and immunotherapy-based combination strategies in recent years has revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody, was approved as monotherapy in 2015 for aRCC after treatment with a VEGF-targeting agent. In April 2018, the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab, a CTLA-4 inhibitor, was approved for intermediate- and poor-risk, previously untreated patients with aRCC. Then, in 2019, combinations therapies consisting of pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) or avelumab (anti-PD-ligand (L) 1) with axitinib (a VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor) were also approved to treat aRCC and are likely to produce dramatic shifts in the therapeutic landscape. To address the rapid advances in immunotherapy options for patients with aRCC, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) reconvened its Cancer Immunotherapy Guidelines (CIG) Renal Cell Carcinoma Subcommittee and tasked it with generating updated consensus recommendations for the treatment of patients with this disease.

In a randomized trial involving patients with advanced previously treated renal-cell carcinoma, nivolumab produced higher response rates than everolimus (25% vs. 5%) and median overall survival was longer (by 5.4 months), to more than 2 years. Each year, an estimated 338,000 new cases of renal-cell carcinoma are diagnosed worldwide, 1 and approximately 30% of patients present with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. 2 A number of targeted therapies have been approved for the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. These agents include vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. 3 , 4 Everolimus is an mTOR inhibitor that is recommended for the treatment of advanced renal-cell carcinoma after treatment with sorafenib or sunitinib has failed. 3 – 6 Although everolimus and other agents have changed the therapeutic landscape for this disease, these . . .

A library of drugs that are in clinical trials or use was screened for inhibitors of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 (HIF-1). Twenty drugs inhibited HIF-1-dependent gene transcription by >88% at a concentration of 0.4 μM. Eleven of these drugs were cardiac glycosides, including digoxin, ouabain, and proscillaridin A, which inhibited HIF-1α protein synthesis and expression of HIF-1 target genes in cancer cells. Digoxin administration increased latency and decreased growth of tumor xenografts, whereas treatment of established tumors resulted in growth arrest within one week. Enforced expression of HIF-1α by transfection was not inhibited by digoxin, and xenografts derived from these cells were resistant to the anti-tumor effects of digoxin, demonstrating that HIF-1 is a critical target of digoxin for cancer therapy.