Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0–1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. Median overall survival was 20·1 months (95% CI 16·7–23·4) with axitinib and 19·2 months (17·5–22·3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·969, 95% CI 0·800–1·174; one-sided p=0·3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8·3 months (95% CI 6·7–9·2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4·7–6·5) with sorafenib (HR 0·656, 95% CI 0·552–0·779; one-sided p<0·0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 [17%]), diarrhoea (40 [11%]), and fatigue (37 [10%]) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand–foot syndrome (61 [17%]), hypertension (43 [12%]), and diarrhoea (27 [8%]) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20·7 months (95% CI 18·4–24·6) versus 12·9 months (10·1–20·4) in the axitinib group (p=0·0116), and 20·2 months (17·1–32·0) versus 14·8 months (12·0–17·7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0·0020). Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Pfizer Inc.

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. 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. 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. 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. None.

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.

A subset of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma show indolent growth of metastases. Because of the toxicity and non-curative nature of systemic therapy, some of these patients could benefit from initial active surveillance. We aimed to characterise the time to initiation of systemic therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma under active surveillance. In this prospective phase 2 trial, we enrolled patients with treatment-naive, asymptomatic, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from five hospitals in the USA, Spain, and the UK. Patients were radiographically assessed at baseline, every 3 months for year 1, every 4 months for year 2, then every 6 months thereafter. Patients continued on observation until initiation of systemic therapy for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma; a decision that was made at the discretion of the treating physician and patient. The primary endpoint of the study was time to initiation of systemic therapy in the per-protocol population. The follow-up of patients is ongoing. Between Aug 21, 2008, and June 7, 2013, we enrolled 52 patients. Median follow-up of patients in the study was 38·1 months (IQR 29·4–48·9). In the 48 patients included in analysis, median time on surveillance from registration on study until initiation of systemic therapy was 14·9 months (95% CI 10·6–25·0). Multivariate analysis showed that higher numbers of International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) adverse risk factors (p=0·0403) and higher numbers of metastatic disease sites (p=0·0414) were associated with a shorter surveillance period. 22 (46%) patients died during the study period, all from metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. A subset of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma can safely undergo surveillance before starting systemic therapy. Additional investigation is required to further define the benefits and risks of this approach. None.

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.