Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose of ReviewIn this review, the importance of the hypoxia inducible factor (HIF) pathway in tumorigenesis and cancer treatment outcomes will be discussed. The outcomes of phase II and III clinical trials of direct HIF inhibitors in the treatment of cancer will be reviewed.Recent FindingsThe HIF signaling pathway is activated by tumor-induced hypoxia or by inactivating mutations of the VHL gene. HIF is a transcription factor which regulates the expression of genes involved in adjusting mechanisms to hypoxia such as angiogenesis or apoptosis as well as tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis. The HIF pathway has a key role in development of resistance to different treatment modalities and higher expression of the HIF molecule is associated with poor prognosis.SummaryClinical studies of the HIF inhibitors in patients with advanced/refractory cancers suggest benefit and warrant further studies of the HIF inhibitors either as a single agent or in combination with other therapeutic agents.

The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2–34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3–not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55–0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7–18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1–12·5]; 0·71 [0·60–0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Therapeutic targeting of integral biological pathways, including those involving vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), has produced robust clinical effects and revolutionised the treatment of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). However, some patients are inherently resistant to these approaches and most, if not all, patients acquire resistance over time. As such, the biological basis for resistance to these targeted therapies and the clinical approach in this setting is of heightened interest. Emerging preclinical evidence suggests resistance is mediated via tumour and environmental changes, which allow for continued perfusion and tumour growth that is less reliant on VEGF. Furthermore, elements upstream of receptor blockade, such as hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) and protein kinase B (AKT), in addition to pathways independent of VEGF or mTOR, could drive tumour growth despite adequate target blockade. These considerations provide a rational basis for combination or sequential therapy targeting these elements. Clinical data support activity of several agents in resistant patient populations, with large-scale clinical trials ongoing to more thoroughly test several postulations regarding the optimum clinical approach.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common type of kidney cancer and comprises several subtypes with unique characteristics. The most common subtype (~70% of cases) is clear-cell RCC. RCC is considered to be an immunogenic tumour but is known to mediate immune dysfunction in large part by eliciting the infiltration of immune-inhibitory cells, such as regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, into the tumour microenvironment. Several possible mechanisms have been proposed to explain how these multiple tumour-infiltrating cell types block the development of an effective anti-tumour immune response, including inhibition of the activity of effector T cells and of antigen presenting cells via upregulation of suppressive factors such as checkpoint molecules. Targeting immune suppression using checkpoint inhibition has resulted in clinical responses in some patients with RCC and combinatorial approaches involving checkpoint blockade are now standard of care in patients with advanced RCC. However, a substantial proportion of patients do not benefit from checkpoint blockade. The identification of reliable biomarkers of response to checkpoint blockade is crucial to facilitate improvements in the clinical efficacy of these therapies. In addition, there is a need for the development of other immune-based strategies that address the shortcomings of checkpoint blockade, such as adoptive cell therapies.Here, the authors describe the effector cell populations and immunosuppressive networks that are present in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumours. They also discuss the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and novel approaches such as adoptive cell therapy in patients with RCC.

Treatment for renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by inhibitors of VEGF receptor. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with a VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor might be effective in patients who had previous checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Therefore, TIVO-3 was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of tivozanib (a potent and selective VEGFR inhibitor) with those of sorafenib as third-line or fourth-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In this open-label, randomised, controlled trial done at 120 academic hospitals in 12 countries, we enrolled eligible patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic renal cell carcinoma and at least two previous systemic treatments (including at least one previous treatment with a VEGFR inhibitor), measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were excluded if they had received previous treatment with tivozanib or sorafenib. Patients were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category and type of previous therapy and randomised (1:1) with a complete permuted block design (block size of four) to either tivozanib 1·5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02627963. Between May 24, 2016, and Aug 14, 2017, 350 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivozanib (175 patients) or sorafenib (175 patients). Median follow-up was 19·0 months (IQR 15·0–23·4). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with tivozanib (5·6 months, 95% CI 5·29–7·33) than with sorafenib (3·9 months, 3·71–5·55; hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·56–0·94; p=0·016). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (35 [20%] of 173 patients treated with tivozanib and 23 [14%] of 170 patients treated with sorafenib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (11%) patients with tivozanib and in 17 (10%) patients with sorafenib. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Our study showed that tivozanib as third-line or fourth-line therapy improved progression-free survival and was better tolerated compared with sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. AVEO Oncology.

Considerable progress has been made in the treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma, with innovative surgical and systemic strategies revolutionising the management of this disease. In localised disease, partial nephrectomy for small tumours and radical nephrectomy for large tumours continue to be the gold-standard treatments, with emphasis on approaches that have reduced invasiveness and preserve renal function. Additionally, cytoreductive nephrectomy is often indicated before the start of systemic treatment in patients with metastatic disease as part of integrated management strategy. The effectiveness of immunotherapy, although previously widely used for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, is still controversial, and is mainly reserved for patients with good prognostic factors. Development of treatments that have specific targets in relevant biological pathways has been the main advance in treatment. Targeted drugs, including inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor and mammalian target of rapamycin pathways, have shown robust effectiveness and offer new therapeutic options for the patients with metastatic disease.

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is histologically defined by its lipid and glycogen-rich cytoplasmic deposits. Alterations in the VHL tumor suppressor stabilizing the hypoxia-inducible factors (HIFs) are the most prevalent molecular features of clear cell tumors. The significance of lipid deposition remains undefined. We describe the mechanism of lipid deposition in ccRCC by identifying the rate-limiting component of mitochondrial fatty acid transport, carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1A ( CPT1A ), as a direct HIF target gene. CPT1A is repressed by HIF1 and HIF2, reducing fatty acid transport into the mitochondria, and forcing fatty acids to lipid droplets for storage. Droplet formation occurs independent of lipid source, but only when CPT1A is repressed. Functionally, repression of CPT1A is critical for tumor formation, as elevated CPT1A expression limits tumor growth. In human tumors, CPT1A expression and activity are decreased versus normal kidney; and poor patient outcome associates with lower expression of CPT1A in tumors in TCGA. Together, our studies identify HIF control of fatty acid metabolism as essential for ccRCC tumorigenesis. Clear cell renal cancers (ccRCC) display elevated intracellular lipid storage. Here the authors show that such lipid accumulation is due to the repression of carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1A (CPT1A) enzyme that impairs fatty acid (FA) transport into the mitochondrion resulting in reduced FA beta oxidation.

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.

Checkpoint inhibitor therapy is a standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Treatment options after checkpoint inhibitor therapy include vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGF-R) tyrosine kinase inhibitors, although no prospective data regarding their use in this setting exist. Axitinib is a VEGF-R inhibitor with clinical data supporting increased activity with dose titration. We aimed to investigate the activity of dose titrated axitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were previously treated with checkpoint inhibitor. We did a multicentre, phase 2 trial of axitinib given on an individualised dosing algorithm. Patients at least 18 years of age with histologically or cytologically confirmed locally recurrent or metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology, a Karnofsky Performance Status of 70% or more, and measurable disease who received checkpoint inhibitor therapy as the most recent treatment were eligible. There was no limit on number of previous therapies received. Patients received oral axitinib at a starting dose of 5 mg twice daily with dose titration every 14 days in 1 mg increments (ie, 5 mg twice daily to 6 mg twice daily, up to 10 mg twice daily maximum dose) if there was no axitinib-related grade 2 or higher mucositis, diarrhoea, hand-foot syndrome, or fatigue. If one or more of these grade 2 adverse events occurred, axitinib was withheld for 3 days before the same dose was resumed. Dose reductions were made if recurrent grade 2 adverse events despite treatment breaks or grade 3–4 adverse events occurred. The primary outcome was progression-free survival. Analyses were done per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib. Recruitment has been completed and the trial is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClincalTrials.gov, number NCT02579811. Between Jan 5, 2016 and Feb 21, 2018, 40 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. With a median follow-up of 8·7 months (IQR 3·7–14·2), the median progression-free survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 5·7–16·6). Fatigue (83%) and hypertension (75%) were the most common all-grade adverse events. The most common grade 3 adverse event was hypertension (24 patients [60%]). There was one (3%) grade 4 adverse event (elevated lipase) and no treatment-related deaths occurred. Serious adverse events that were likely related to therapy occurred in eight (20%) patients; the most common were dehydration (n=4) and diarrhoea (n=2). Individualised axitinib dosing in patients with metastatic renal cell inoma previously treated with checkpoint inhibitors did not meet the prespecified threshold for progression free survival, but these data show that this individualised titration scheme is feasible and has robust clinical activity. These prospective results warrant consideration of axitinib in this setting. Pfizer.