Renal Cell Carcinoma

For third- or fourth-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the vascular epidermal growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor tivozanib may offer better progression-free survival than sorafenib, another VEGFR inhibitor, based on results from the TIVO-3 trial.

Susan London/MDedge News

Tivozanib also had fewer dose reductions and dose interruptions than sorafenib, likely because of less off-target activity, reported lead author Brian I. Rini, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland, and colleagues.

“These results support tivozanib as a treatment option for patients with recurrent and progressive renal cell carcinoma, including those who have progressed after previous immunotherapy,” the investigators wrote in Lancet Oncology.

The open-label, phase 3 trial involved 350 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who had been treated with two or more systemic therapies, at least one of which was a VEGFR inhibitor. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive either tivozanib 1.5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily on a continuous basis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rates, and duration of response. Endpoints were evaluated by independent review. Safety was reported for all patients who received one or more doses of therapy.

After a median follow-up of 19 months, tivozanib was associated with a median progression-free survival of 5.6 months, compared with 3.9 months for sorafenib (P = .016). Significantly more patients in the tivozanib group achieved a response, and at 1 year, 71% of patients in the tivozanib group maintained a response, compared with 46% of the patients in the sorafenib group. At data cutoff, median overall survival was not significantly different between groups.

The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse event was hypertension, which occurred in a slightly higher rate among those treated with tivozanib (20% vs. 14%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred at comparable rates in each treatment arm, at 11% for tivozanib and 10% for sorafenib. Compared with patients who received sorafenib, those in the tivozanib group had fewer dose reductions (24% vs. 38%) and dose interruptions (48% vs. 63%) because of adverse events, a benefit that the investigators attributed to relatively lower class-related off-target activity.

“To our knowledge, TIVO-3 provides the largest amount of prospective data generated to date regarding the use of VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors after checkpoint inhibitor treatment,” the investigators wrote. “Notably, the benefit of tivozanib extended to patients who had previously received checkpoint inhibitors and those treated with two previous tyrosine kinase inhibitors.”

The study was funded by AVEO Oncology. The investigators reported additional relationships with Pfizer, Eisai, Astellas, and others.

SOURCE: Rini BI et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec 3. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30735-1.

For third- or fourth-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the vascular epidermal growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor tivozanib may offer better progression-free survival than sorafenib, another VEGFR inhibitor, based on results from the TIVO-3 trial.

Susan London/MDedge News

Tivozanib also had fewer dose reductions and dose interruptions than sorafenib, likely because of less off-target activity, reported lead author Brian I. Rini, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland, and colleagues.

“These results support tivozanib as a treatment option for patients with recurrent and progressive renal cell carcinoma, including those who have progressed after previous immunotherapy,” the investigators wrote in Lancet Oncology.

The open-label, phase 3 trial involved 350 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who had been treated with two or more systemic therapies, at least one of which was a VEGFR inhibitor. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive either tivozanib 1.5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily on a continuous basis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rates, and duration of response. Endpoints were evaluated by independent review. Safety was reported for all patients who received one or more doses of therapy.

After a median follow-up of 19 months, tivozanib was associated with a median progression-free survival of 5.6 months, compared with 3.9 months for sorafenib (P = .016). Significantly more patients in the tivozanib group achieved a response, and at 1 year, 71% of patients in the tivozanib group maintained a response, compared with 46% of the patients in the sorafenib group. At data cutoff, median overall survival was not significantly different between groups.

The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse event was hypertension, which occurred in a slightly higher rate among those treated with tivozanib (20% vs. 14%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred at comparable rates in each treatment arm, at 11% for tivozanib and 10% for sorafenib. Compared with patients who received sorafenib, those in the tivozanib group had fewer dose reductions (24% vs. 38%) and dose interruptions (48% vs. 63%) because of adverse events, a benefit that the investigators attributed to relatively lower class-related off-target activity.

“To our knowledge, TIVO-3 provides the largest amount of prospective data generated to date regarding the use of VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors after checkpoint inhibitor treatment,” the investigators wrote. “Notably, the benefit of tivozanib extended to patients who had previously received checkpoint inhibitors and those treated with two previous tyrosine kinase inhibitors.”

The study was funded by AVEO Oncology. The investigators reported additional relationships with Pfizer, Eisai, Astellas, and others.

SOURCE: Rini BI et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec 3. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30735-1.

For third- or fourth-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the vascular epidermal growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor tivozanib may offer better progression-free survival than sorafenib, another VEGFR inhibitor, based on results from the TIVO-3 trial.

Susan London/MDedge News

Tivozanib also had fewer dose reductions and dose interruptions than sorafenib, likely because of less off-target activity, reported lead author Brian I. Rini, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland, and colleagues.

“These results support tivozanib as a treatment option for patients with recurrent and progressive renal cell carcinoma, including those who have progressed after previous immunotherapy,” the investigators wrote in Lancet Oncology.

The open-label, phase 3 trial involved 350 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who had been treated with two or more systemic therapies, at least one of which was a VEGFR inhibitor. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive either tivozanib 1.5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily on a continuous basis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rates, and duration of response. Endpoints were evaluated by independent review. Safety was reported for all patients who received one or more doses of therapy.

After a median follow-up of 19 months, tivozanib was associated with a median progression-free survival of 5.6 months, compared with 3.9 months for sorafenib (P = .016). Significantly more patients in the tivozanib group achieved a response, and at 1 year, 71% of patients in the tivozanib group maintained a response, compared with 46% of the patients in the sorafenib group. At data cutoff, median overall survival was not significantly different between groups.

The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse event was hypertension, which occurred in a slightly higher rate among those treated with tivozanib (20% vs. 14%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred at comparable rates in each treatment arm, at 11% for tivozanib and 10% for sorafenib. Compared with patients who received sorafenib, those in the tivozanib group had fewer dose reductions (24% vs. 38%) and dose interruptions (48% vs. 63%) because of adverse events, a benefit that the investigators attributed to relatively lower class-related off-target activity.

“To our knowledge, TIVO-3 provides the largest amount of prospective data generated to date regarding the use of VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors after checkpoint inhibitor treatment,” the investigators wrote. “Notably, the benefit of tivozanib extended to patients who had previously received checkpoint inhibitors and those treated with two previous tyrosine kinase inhibitors.”

The study was funded by AVEO Oncology. The investigators reported additional relationships with Pfizer, Eisai, Astellas, and others.

SOURCE: Rini BI et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec 3. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30735-1.

The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may offer some benefit to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, especially those who are positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), investigators report.

The overall response rate (ORR) among such patients was 60%, compared with 19% in PD-L1–negative patients, Bradley A. McGregor, MD, clinical director for the Lank Center of Genitourinary Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The data were presented last summer at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting in Chicago.

The phase 2 study comprised 60 patients, 42 of whom had variant histology RCC, and 18 of whom had clear cell RCC (ccRCC ) with at least 20% sarcomatoid differentiation. All patients had advanced renal cell carcinoma of various histologies, including papillary (12), chromophobe (10), unclassified (9), TFE3 translocation (5), collecting duct (5), and medullary (1). Most (65%) had not received prior systemic therapy.

They all received infusions of atezolizumab 1,200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. No dose modifications were allowed. Dose delays were allowed, and patients could also drop one agent and continue with the other. Treatment continued until disease progression, toxicity, or intolerable side effects.

The median number of cycles was 9.5, although the range was wide (1-42). At analysis, 15 were still on the treatment, but 45 had dropped out. Reasons were disease progression (34), death (1), toxicity (5), or unspecified (8). Six patients delayed bevacizumab doses, half because of adverse events.

After a median follow-up of 13 months, the ORR was 33%. Those with ccRCC with sarcomatoid differentiation responded best to the combination (ORR, 50%). Those with variant-histology RCC responded less robustly (ORR, 26%).

ORR varied by baseline risk category, being 33% in favorable-, 45% in intermediate-, and 11% in poor-risk patients. Median time to response was 2.7 months, median response duration was 8.9 months, and median progression-free survival was 8.3 months.

PD-L1 status was determined in 36 patients; 15 were positive. Among the positive patents, ORR was 60%, compared with 19% in PD-L1 negative patients. Response rates varied with tumor characteristics. Among patients with ccRCC with sarcomatoid differentiation, the ORR was 50% in PD-L1–positive patients and 29% in negative patients. In patients with variant histology RCC, the ORR was also better in PD-L1 positive patients (67% vs. 14%).

The most common treatment-related side effects were fatigue (35%), proteinuria (35%), musculoskeletal pain (33%), diarrhea (22%), rash (20%), hypertension (18%), pruritus (18%), thyroid dysfunction (17%), hepatitis (15%), fever (13%), and mucositis (12%). Thirty-four patients developed at least one grade 3 adverse event; there were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. One patient died, presumably because of disease progression.

Quality of life scores were largely stable during treatment.

“The combination demonstrated responses across several subtypes of RCC, including collecting duct and medullary carcinoma, histologies that are often treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy,” the authors said. “This is notable given the generally poor prognosis and low response rate associated with variant histology RCC in trials to date.”

The study also suggests the PD-L1 status might be “intriguing as a biomarker for response to atezolizumab and bevacizumab in variant histology RCC. We plan to conduct additional correlative work, including genomic profiling and assessment of the immune microenvironment, to better elucidate markers of response and resistance,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE: McGregor BA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01882.

The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may offer some benefit to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, especially those who are positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), investigators report.

The overall response rate (ORR) among such patients was 60%, compared with 19% in PD-L1–negative patients, Bradley A. McGregor, MD, clinical director for the Lank Center of Genitourinary Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The data were presented last summer at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting in Chicago.

The phase 2 study comprised 60 patients, 42 of whom had variant histology RCC, and 18 of whom had clear cell RCC (ccRCC ) with at least 20% sarcomatoid differentiation. All patients had advanced renal cell carcinoma of various histologies, including papillary (12), chromophobe (10), unclassified (9), TFE3 translocation (5), collecting duct (5), and medullary (1). Most (65%) had not received prior systemic therapy.

They all received infusions of atezolizumab 1,200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. No dose modifications were allowed. Dose delays were allowed, and patients could also drop one agent and continue with the other. Treatment continued until disease progression, toxicity, or intolerable side effects.

The median number of cycles was 9.5, although the range was wide (1-42). At analysis, 15 were still on the treatment, but 45 had dropped out. Reasons were disease progression (34), death (1), toxicity (5), or unspecified (8). Six patients delayed bevacizumab doses, half because of adverse events.

After a median follow-up of 13 months, the ORR was 33%. Those with ccRCC with sarcomatoid differentiation responded best to the combination (ORR, 50%). Those with variant-histology RCC responded less robustly (ORR, 26%).

ORR varied by baseline risk category, being 33% in favorable-, 45% in intermediate-, and 11% in poor-risk patients. Median time to response was 2.7 months, median response duration was 8.9 months, and median progression-free survival was 8.3 months.

PD-L1 status was determined in 36 patients; 15 were positive. Among the positive patents, ORR was 60%, compared with 19% in PD-L1 negative patients. Response rates varied with tumor characteristics. Among patients with ccRCC with sarcomatoid differentiation, the ORR was 50% in PD-L1–positive patients and 29% in negative patients. In patients with variant histology RCC, the ORR was also better in PD-L1 positive patients (67% vs. 14%).

The most common treatment-related side effects were fatigue (35%), proteinuria (35%), musculoskeletal pain (33%), diarrhea (22%), rash (20%), hypertension (18%), pruritus (18%), thyroid dysfunction (17%), hepatitis (15%), fever (13%), and mucositis (12%). Thirty-four patients developed at least one grade 3 adverse event; there were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. One patient died, presumably because of disease progression.

Quality of life scores were largely stable during treatment.

“The combination demonstrated responses across several subtypes of RCC, including collecting duct and medullary carcinoma, histologies that are often treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy,” the authors said. “This is notable given the generally poor prognosis and low response rate associated with variant histology RCC in trials to date.”

The study also suggests the PD-L1 status might be “intriguing as a biomarker for response to atezolizumab and bevacizumab in variant histology RCC. We plan to conduct additional correlative work, including genomic profiling and assessment of the immune microenvironment, to better elucidate markers of response and resistance,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE: McGregor BA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01882.

The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may offer some benefit to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, especially those who are positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), investigators report.

The overall response rate (ORR) among such patients was 60%, compared with 19% in PD-L1–negative patients, Bradley A. McGregor, MD, clinical director for the Lank Center of Genitourinary Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The data were presented last summer at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting in Chicago.

The phase 2 study comprised 60 patients, 42 of whom had variant histology RCC, and 18 of whom had clear cell RCC (ccRCC ) with at least 20% sarcomatoid differentiation. All patients had advanced renal cell carcinoma of various histologies, including papillary (12), chromophobe (10), unclassified (9), TFE3 translocation (5), collecting duct (5), and medullary (1). Most (65%) had not received prior systemic therapy.

They all received infusions of atezolizumab 1,200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. No dose modifications were allowed. Dose delays were allowed, and patients could also drop one agent and continue with the other. Treatment continued until disease progression, toxicity, or intolerable side effects.

The median number of cycles was 9.5, although the range was wide (1-42). At analysis, 15 were still on the treatment, but 45 had dropped out. Reasons were disease progression (34), death (1), toxicity (5), or unspecified (8). Six patients delayed bevacizumab doses, half because of adverse events.

After a median follow-up of 13 months, the ORR was 33%. Those with ccRCC with sarcomatoid differentiation responded best to the combination (ORR, 50%). Those with variant-histology RCC responded less robustly (ORR, 26%).

ORR varied by baseline risk category, being 33% in favorable-, 45% in intermediate-, and 11% in poor-risk patients. Median time to response was 2.7 months, median response duration was 8.9 months, and median progression-free survival was 8.3 months.

PD-L1 status was determined in 36 patients; 15 were positive. Among the positive patents, ORR was 60%, compared with 19% in PD-L1 negative patients. Response rates varied with tumor characteristics. Among patients with ccRCC with sarcomatoid differentiation, the ORR was 50% in PD-L1–positive patients and 29% in negative patients. In patients with variant histology RCC, the ORR was also better in PD-L1 positive patients (67% vs. 14%).

The most common treatment-related side effects were fatigue (35%), proteinuria (35%), musculoskeletal pain (33%), diarrhea (22%), rash (20%), hypertension (18%), pruritus (18%), thyroid dysfunction (17%), hepatitis (15%), fever (13%), and mucositis (12%). Thirty-four patients developed at least one grade 3 adverse event; there were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. One patient died, presumably because of disease progression.

Quality of life scores were largely stable during treatment.

“The combination demonstrated responses across several subtypes of RCC, including collecting duct and medullary carcinoma, histologies that are often treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy,” the authors said. “This is notable given the generally poor prognosis and low response rate associated with variant histology RCC in trials to date.”

The study also suggests the PD-L1 status might be “intriguing as a biomarker for response to atezolizumab and bevacizumab in variant histology RCC. We plan to conduct additional correlative work, including genomic profiling and assessment of the immune microenvironment, to better elucidate markers of response and resistance,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE: McGregor BA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01882.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two articles that demonstrate the safety of established treatments – nephrectomy and stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) – in patient populations that previously may have been excluded from those treatments at many centers.

Nephrectomy in advanced RCC

Nirmish Singla, MD, and colleagues reported a single-center retrospective cohort study, assessing outcomes of 11 nephrectomies (10 radical, 1 partial) in 10 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who had received front- or later-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (ICIs). Half had received nivolumab alone; the others received nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Surgery was performed laparoscopically in five cases (Urol Oncol. 2019 Dec;37[12]:924-31).

No patient experienced a major intraoperative complication. Four experienced postoperative complications, the majority of which were addressed with interventional radiology procedures. The median hospital stay was 4 days. One patient died of progressive disease more than 3 months after surgery, and another died of pulmonary embolism and sepsis. Six of the 10 patients did not have any complications or readmissions. There were no immune-related toxicities and no wound-healing issues. ICI therapy was resumed postoperatively in six patients.

At nephrectomy (plus or minus metastatectomy), one patient achieved a response to immunotherapy in the primary tumor, and three of four patients who underwent resection of hepatic, pulmonary, or adrenal metastases had no detectable cancer. All surgical margins were negative.

During a median postoperative follow-up of 180 days, nephrectomy following ICI was safe. Pathologic response in both the primary tumor and metastatic sites was encouraging.

What this means in clinical practice

In medical school, all of us are admonished not to be afraid to unlearn something and to learn something new. Historically, nephrectomy was felt to be helpful in improving overall survival in patients with advanced RCC. Effective targeted therapies and ICIs have caused us to question the role of nephrectomy and its timing, since 20%-40% of patients who have apparently localized RCC at the time of nephrectomy develop recurrences within 3 years. Preoperative therapy could mitigate potentially aggressive tumor biology, treat micrometastatic disease, and help select patients who should not be treated surgically.

In the CARMENA trial of the treatment of advanced RCC patients with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib versus nephrectomy followed by sunitinib, most patients could avoid nephrectomy without compromising survival (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:417-27). Results were updated at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Overall, nephrectomy was not beneficial. However, delayed nephrectomy (after sunitinib) appeared be beneficial for good responders with only one IMDC (International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium) risk factor and only one metastatic site.

The small study by Dr. Singla and colleagues illustrates that nephrectomy is feasible after ICI, plus or minus anti-CTLA4-targeted treatment, and that favorable histologic results can be achieved. With ICI plus or minus anti-CTLA4-targeted treatment, no patient had progressive disease prior to surgery. This experience is germane in view of recently updated results of the CheckMate 214 trial, showing superior overall survival, response rates, and response duration for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, in comparison with sunitinib.

There are still unresolved questions, including whether these favorable outcomes can be achieved in community practice and whether there are genomic or immunohistochemistry expression profiles to select patients who can benefit from this approach. It’s unclear whether there are practical issues that influence outcome, such as type of ICI, number of preoperative treatment cycles, and additional systemic therapies including postoperative treatment. However, the current series rings the starting bell for the study of those questions and a promising era for patients with this deadly disease.
 

SABR in moderately central NSCLC

SABR to peripheral, small non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) produces high local control rates, with low grade 3-4 toxicity, and is an alternative to resection in patients who are unfit for surgery. In a pragmatic, community-based, prospective cohort experience in Scotland, Robert Rulach, MBChB, and colleagues, treated 50 T1-2N0M0 NSCLC patients with SABR 50-Gy in five fractions (Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 10. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2019.09.055). The dose and fractionation schedule was safe and effective in the phase 1/2 RTOG 0813 trial and is concordant with guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

All of the tumors were moderately central, as in the RTOG trial. One patient had an additional tumor that was ultracentral. Notably, 84% of patients were deemed medically unfit for surgery.

All patients completed radiotherapy without treatment delays. Two patients died within 90 days of treatment. There were no grade 4 or grade 5 toxicities and the overall rate of grade 3 toxicity was 4%. With a median follow-up of 25.2 months, 34 patients died: 18 from causes unrelated to cancer and 16 from cancer recurrence. The median overall survival was 27 months. The 2-year overall survival rate was 67.6%, commensurate with the rate seen in RTOG 0813.

The researchers concluded that, for frail patients with centrally-located NSCLC treated uniformly in a community practice, SABR with the RTOG 0813 treatment protocol produced acceptable toxicity and overall survival comparable with the published literature.

What this means in clinical practice

The results and conclusions of the study by Dr. Rulach and colleagues are straightforward: SABR can be used for centrally-located NSCLC without producing massive hemoptysis, bronchial stricture, and fistula formation. Since the majority of patients had no histologic diagnosis, T1N0 lesions, and no routine follow-up CT scans beyond 3 months post treatment, conclusions beyond that are unjustified.

In a community-based practice, NCCN guideline–concordant SABR treatment in moderately centrally-located NSCLC was safely delivered. For the burgeoning population of medically inoperable and/or elderly NSCLC patients, this alone is reassuring for clinicians and is helpful information for patients who require and/or desire nonsurgical treatment.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two articles that demonstrate the safety of established treatments – nephrectomy and stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) – in patient populations that previously may have been excluded from those treatments at many centers.

Nephrectomy in advanced RCC

Nirmish Singla, MD, and colleagues reported a single-center retrospective cohort study, assessing outcomes of 11 nephrectomies (10 radical, 1 partial) in 10 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who had received front- or later-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (ICIs). Half had received nivolumab alone; the others received nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Surgery was performed laparoscopically in five cases (Urol Oncol. 2019 Dec;37[12]:924-31).

No patient experienced a major intraoperative complication. Four experienced postoperative complications, the majority of which were addressed with interventional radiology procedures. The median hospital stay was 4 days. One patient died of progressive disease more than 3 months after surgery, and another died of pulmonary embolism and sepsis. Six of the 10 patients did not have any complications or readmissions. There were no immune-related toxicities and no wound-healing issues. ICI therapy was resumed postoperatively in six patients.

At nephrectomy (plus or minus metastatectomy), one patient achieved a response to immunotherapy in the primary tumor, and three of four patients who underwent resection of hepatic, pulmonary, or adrenal metastases had no detectable cancer. All surgical margins were negative.

During a median postoperative follow-up of 180 days, nephrectomy following ICI was safe. Pathologic response in both the primary tumor and metastatic sites was encouraging.

What this means in clinical practice

In medical school, all of us are admonished not to be afraid to unlearn something and to learn something new. Historically, nephrectomy was felt to be helpful in improving overall survival in patients with advanced RCC. Effective targeted therapies and ICIs have caused us to question the role of nephrectomy and its timing, since 20%-40% of patients who have apparently localized RCC at the time of nephrectomy develop recurrences within 3 years. Preoperative therapy could mitigate potentially aggressive tumor biology, treat micrometastatic disease, and help select patients who should not be treated surgically.

In the CARMENA trial of the treatment of advanced RCC patients with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib versus nephrectomy followed by sunitinib, most patients could avoid nephrectomy without compromising survival (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:417-27). Results were updated at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Overall, nephrectomy was not beneficial. However, delayed nephrectomy (after sunitinib) appeared be beneficial for good responders with only one IMDC (International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium) risk factor and only one metastatic site.

The small study by Dr. Singla and colleagues illustrates that nephrectomy is feasible after ICI, plus or minus anti-CTLA4-targeted treatment, and that favorable histologic results can be achieved. With ICI plus or minus anti-CTLA4-targeted treatment, no patient had progressive disease prior to surgery. This experience is germane in view of recently updated results of the CheckMate 214 trial, showing superior overall survival, response rates, and response duration for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, in comparison with sunitinib.

There are still unresolved questions, including whether these favorable outcomes can be achieved in community practice and whether there are genomic or immunohistochemistry expression profiles to select patients who can benefit from this approach. It’s unclear whether there are practical issues that influence outcome, such as type of ICI, number of preoperative treatment cycles, and additional systemic therapies including postoperative treatment. However, the current series rings the starting bell for the study of those questions and a promising era for patients with this deadly disease.
 

SABR in moderately central NSCLC

SABR to peripheral, small non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) produces high local control rates, with low grade 3-4 toxicity, and is an alternative to resection in patients who are unfit for surgery. In a pragmatic, community-based, prospective cohort experience in Scotland, Robert Rulach, MBChB, and colleagues, treated 50 T1-2N0M0 NSCLC patients with SABR 50-Gy in five fractions (Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 10. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2019.09.055). The dose and fractionation schedule was safe and effective in the phase 1/2 RTOG 0813 trial and is concordant with guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

All of the tumors were moderately central, as in the RTOG trial. One patient had an additional tumor that was ultracentral. Notably, 84% of patients were deemed medically unfit for surgery.

All patients completed radiotherapy without treatment delays. Two patients died within 90 days of treatment. There were no grade 4 or grade 5 toxicities and the overall rate of grade 3 toxicity was 4%. With a median follow-up of 25.2 months, 34 patients died: 18 from causes unrelated to cancer and 16 from cancer recurrence. The median overall survival was 27 months. The 2-year overall survival rate was 67.6%, commensurate with the rate seen in RTOG 0813.

The researchers concluded that, for frail patients with centrally-located NSCLC treated uniformly in a community practice, SABR with the RTOG 0813 treatment protocol produced acceptable toxicity and overall survival comparable with the published literature.

What this means in clinical practice

The results and conclusions of the study by Dr. Rulach and colleagues are straightforward: SABR can be used for centrally-located NSCLC without producing massive hemoptysis, bronchial stricture, and fistula formation. Since the majority of patients had no histologic diagnosis, T1N0 lesions, and no routine follow-up CT scans beyond 3 months post treatment, conclusions beyond that are unjustified.

In a community-based practice, NCCN guideline–concordant SABR treatment in moderately centrally-located NSCLC was safely delivered. For the burgeoning population of medically inoperable and/or elderly NSCLC patients, this alone is reassuring for clinicians and is helpful information for patients who require and/or desire nonsurgical treatment.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two articles that demonstrate the safety of established treatments – nephrectomy and stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) – in patient populations that previously may have been excluded from those treatments at many centers.

Nephrectomy in advanced RCC

Nirmish Singla, MD, and colleagues reported a single-center retrospective cohort study, assessing outcomes of 11 nephrectomies (10 radical, 1 partial) in 10 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who had received front- or later-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (ICIs). Half had received nivolumab alone; the others received nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Surgery was performed laparoscopically in five cases (Urol Oncol. 2019 Dec;37[12]:924-31).

No patient experienced a major intraoperative complication. Four experienced postoperative complications, the majority of which were addressed with interventional radiology procedures. The median hospital stay was 4 days. One patient died of progressive disease more than 3 months after surgery, and another died of pulmonary embolism and sepsis. Six of the 10 patients did not have any complications or readmissions. There were no immune-related toxicities and no wound-healing issues. ICI therapy was resumed postoperatively in six patients.

At nephrectomy (plus or minus metastatectomy), one patient achieved a response to immunotherapy in the primary tumor, and three of four patients who underwent resection of hepatic, pulmonary, or adrenal metastases had no detectable cancer. All surgical margins were negative.

During a median postoperative follow-up of 180 days, nephrectomy following ICI was safe. Pathologic response in both the primary tumor and metastatic sites was encouraging.

What this means in clinical practice

In medical school, all of us are admonished not to be afraid to unlearn something and to learn something new. Historically, nephrectomy was felt to be helpful in improving overall survival in patients with advanced RCC. Effective targeted therapies and ICIs have caused us to question the role of nephrectomy and its timing, since 20%-40% of patients who have apparently localized RCC at the time of nephrectomy develop recurrences within 3 years. Preoperative therapy could mitigate potentially aggressive tumor biology, treat micrometastatic disease, and help select patients who should not be treated surgically.

In the CARMENA trial of the treatment of advanced RCC patients with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib versus nephrectomy followed by sunitinib, most patients could avoid nephrectomy without compromising survival (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:417-27). Results were updated at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Overall, nephrectomy was not beneficial. However, delayed nephrectomy (after sunitinib) appeared be beneficial for good responders with only one IMDC (International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium) risk factor and only one metastatic site.

The small study by Dr. Singla and colleagues illustrates that nephrectomy is feasible after ICI, plus or minus anti-CTLA4-targeted treatment, and that favorable histologic results can be achieved. With ICI plus or minus anti-CTLA4-targeted treatment, no patient had progressive disease prior to surgery. This experience is germane in view of recently updated results of the CheckMate 214 trial, showing superior overall survival, response rates, and response duration for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, in comparison with sunitinib.

There are still unresolved questions, including whether these favorable outcomes can be achieved in community practice and whether there are genomic or immunohistochemistry expression profiles to select patients who can benefit from this approach. It’s unclear whether there are practical issues that influence outcome, such as type of ICI, number of preoperative treatment cycles, and additional systemic therapies including postoperative treatment. However, the current series rings the starting bell for the study of those questions and a promising era for patients with this deadly disease.
 

SABR in moderately central NSCLC

SABR to peripheral, small non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) produces high local control rates, with low grade 3-4 toxicity, and is an alternative to resection in patients who are unfit for surgery. In a pragmatic, community-based, prospective cohort experience in Scotland, Robert Rulach, MBChB, and colleagues, treated 50 T1-2N0M0 NSCLC patients with SABR 50-Gy in five fractions (Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 10. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2019.09.055). The dose and fractionation schedule was safe and effective in the phase 1/2 RTOG 0813 trial and is concordant with guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

All of the tumors were moderately central, as in the RTOG trial. One patient had an additional tumor that was ultracentral. Notably, 84% of patients were deemed medically unfit for surgery.

All patients completed radiotherapy without treatment delays. Two patients died within 90 days of treatment. There were no grade 4 or grade 5 toxicities and the overall rate of grade 3 toxicity was 4%. With a median follow-up of 25.2 months, 34 patients died: 18 from causes unrelated to cancer and 16 from cancer recurrence. The median overall survival was 27 months. The 2-year overall survival rate was 67.6%, commensurate with the rate seen in RTOG 0813.

The researchers concluded that, for frail patients with centrally-located NSCLC treated uniformly in a community practice, SABR with the RTOG 0813 treatment protocol produced acceptable toxicity and overall survival comparable with the published literature.

What this means in clinical practice

The results and conclusions of the study by Dr. Rulach and colleagues are straightforward: SABR can be used for centrally-located NSCLC without producing massive hemoptysis, bronchial stricture, and fistula formation. Since the majority of patients had no histologic diagnosis, T1N0 lesions, and no routine follow-up CT scans beyond 3 months post treatment, conclusions beyond that are unjustified.

In a community-based practice, NCCN guideline–concordant SABR treatment in moderately centrally-located NSCLC was safely delivered. For the burgeoning population of medically inoperable and/or elderly NSCLC patients, this alone is reassuring for clinicians and is helpful information for patients who require and/or desire nonsurgical treatment.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

First-line sunitinib therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has somewhat differing effectiveness and safety when used in real-world practice, compared with clinical trials, suggests the OSSMAR multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Investigators led by Marwan Ghosn, MD, Hotel-Dieu de France University Hospital and Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon, analyzed outcomes among 289 patients with mRCC started on sunitinib (Sutent), an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, between 2006 and 2016 at 10 centers in Africa and the Middle East region.

The patients had a median age at diagnosis of 58.7 years, and 85.8% had clear cell histology. Two-thirds had metastases at diagnosis, and 15.2% and 31.4% had favorable- and poor-risk disease, respectively, according to expanded Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria. Overall, 52.2% had undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, and nearly all were receiving sunitinib as first-line therapy.

Study results, reported in the Journal of Global Oncology, showed that the mean total sunitinib starting dose was 48.1 mg, with most patients (87.6%) started on a dose of 50 mg. On average, the drug was given for 9.6 months.

The overall response rate was 20.8%, and responses lasted for a median of of 8.2 months. With a median follow-up of 7.8 months, patients had a median time to progression of 5.7 months and a median overall survival of 7.8 months. The 12- and 24-month rates of overall survival were 34.3% and 11.4%, respectively.

Although 60.9% of patients experienced adverse events, only 8.0% experienced serious adverse events. The main adverse events were gastrointestinal and hematologic, mirroring those seen previously in trials. About a third of the whole study cohort (28.7%) discontinued sunitinib therapy.

“OSSMAR is the first study in the Middle East involving several Arab countries and evaluating the use of real-time sunitinib in the treatment of mRCC. As a result, this study is of primary importance because it allows for a better assessment of the actual effectiveness and practical adverse events of sunitinib in the population in our region,” Dr. Ghosn and coinvestigators maintained.

Compared with patients in clinical trials, OSSMAR patients had poorer overall survival, possibly due to factors such as a relatively lower nephrectomy rate, real-world influences such as comorbidities, and losses to follow-up, the investigators proposed.

At the same time, the OSSMAR cohort also had a lower rate of adverse events, although this difference likely reflects less rigorous assessment of toxicity in real-world practice, they noted.

Dr. Ghosn disclosed that he has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Ghosn M et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 Oct 5. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00238.

First-line sunitinib therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has somewhat differing effectiveness and safety when used in real-world practice, compared with clinical trials, suggests the OSSMAR multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Investigators led by Marwan Ghosn, MD, Hotel-Dieu de France University Hospital and Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon, analyzed outcomes among 289 patients with mRCC started on sunitinib (Sutent), an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, between 2006 and 2016 at 10 centers in Africa and the Middle East region.

The patients had a median age at diagnosis of 58.7 years, and 85.8% had clear cell histology. Two-thirds had metastases at diagnosis, and 15.2% and 31.4% had favorable- and poor-risk disease, respectively, according to expanded Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria. Overall, 52.2% had undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, and nearly all were receiving sunitinib as first-line therapy.

Study results, reported in the Journal of Global Oncology, showed that the mean total sunitinib starting dose was 48.1 mg, with most patients (87.6%) started on a dose of 50 mg. On average, the drug was given for 9.6 months.

The overall response rate was 20.8%, and responses lasted for a median of of 8.2 months. With a median follow-up of 7.8 months, patients had a median time to progression of 5.7 months and a median overall survival of 7.8 months. The 12- and 24-month rates of overall survival were 34.3% and 11.4%, respectively.

Although 60.9% of patients experienced adverse events, only 8.0% experienced serious adverse events. The main adverse events were gastrointestinal and hematologic, mirroring those seen previously in trials. About a third of the whole study cohort (28.7%) discontinued sunitinib therapy.

“OSSMAR is the first study in the Middle East involving several Arab countries and evaluating the use of real-time sunitinib in the treatment of mRCC. As a result, this study is of primary importance because it allows for a better assessment of the actual effectiveness and practical adverse events of sunitinib in the population in our region,” Dr. Ghosn and coinvestigators maintained.

Compared with patients in clinical trials, OSSMAR patients had poorer overall survival, possibly due to factors such as a relatively lower nephrectomy rate, real-world influences such as comorbidities, and losses to follow-up, the investigators proposed.

At the same time, the OSSMAR cohort also had a lower rate of adverse events, although this difference likely reflects less rigorous assessment of toxicity in real-world practice, they noted.

Dr. Ghosn disclosed that he has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Ghosn M et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 Oct 5. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00238.

First-line sunitinib therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has somewhat differing effectiveness and safety when used in real-world practice, compared with clinical trials, suggests the OSSMAR multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Investigators led by Marwan Ghosn, MD, Hotel-Dieu de France University Hospital and Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon, analyzed outcomes among 289 patients with mRCC started on sunitinib (Sutent), an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, between 2006 and 2016 at 10 centers in Africa and the Middle East region.

The patients had a median age at diagnosis of 58.7 years, and 85.8% had clear cell histology. Two-thirds had metastases at diagnosis, and 15.2% and 31.4% had favorable- and poor-risk disease, respectively, according to expanded Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria. Overall, 52.2% had undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, and nearly all were receiving sunitinib as first-line therapy.

Study results, reported in the Journal of Global Oncology, showed that the mean total sunitinib starting dose was 48.1 mg, with most patients (87.6%) started on a dose of 50 mg. On average, the drug was given for 9.6 months.

The overall response rate was 20.8%, and responses lasted for a median of of 8.2 months. With a median follow-up of 7.8 months, patients had a median time to progression of 5.7 months and a median overall survival of 7.8 months. The 12- and 24-month rates of overall survival were 34.3% and 11.4%, respectively.

Although 60.9% of patients experienced adverse events, only 8.0% experienced serious adverse events. The main adverse events were gastrointestinal and hematologic, mirroring those seen previously in trials. About a third of the whole study cohort (28.7%) discontinued sunitinib therapy.

“OSSMAR is the first study in the Middle East involving several Arab countries and evaluating the use of real-time sunitinib in the treatment of mRCC. As a result, this study is of primary importance because it allows for a better assessment of the actual effectiveness and practical adverse events of sunitinib in the population in our region,” Dr. Ghosn and coinvestigators maintained.

Compared with patients in clinical trials, OSSMAR patients had poorer overall survival, possibly due to factors such as a relatively lower nephrectomy rate, real-world influences such as comorbidities, and losses to follow-up, the investigators proposed.

At the same time, the OSSMAR cohort also had a lower rate of adverse events, although this difference likely reflects less rigorous assessment of toxicity in real-world practice, they noted.

Dr. Ghosn disclosed that he has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Ghosn M et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 Oct 5. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00238.

Patients whose clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors lack the cytoskeleton linker protein ezrin have a poorer prognosis, finds a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The number of small renal masses discovered incidentally is rising, and some of these tumors can or must be treated less aggressively, according to lead investigator Marcos Vinicius O. Ferrari, MD, urology division, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, and coinvestigators. “Thus, it is important to identify molecular markers that have prognostic value that can assist physicians in therapeutic strategies.”

The investigators studied 575 consecutive patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for clear cell RCC during 1985-2016. A single pathologist reclassified all cases and determined the most representative tumor areas for tissue immunohistochemistry for ezrin and moesin, proteins that link the actin cytoskeleton to the cell membrane and that play roles in cell adhesion, migration, and growth.

Results reported in Urologic Oncology showed that 18.3% of tumors were negative for ezrin and 2.8% were negative for moesin.

Compared with counterparts who had ezrin-positive tumors, patients with ezrin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P less than .001); were less likely to have incidentally discovered tumors (P = .007); and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .012), synchronous metastasis (P less than .001), and an International Society of Urological Pathology histologic grade of 3 or 4 (P = .025).

Similarly, compared with counterparts who had moesin-positive tumors, patients with moesin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P = .025) and pathologic N stage (P = .007), and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .027).

The 10-year rate of disease-specific survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (70% vs. 88%; P less than .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .065). Similarly, the 10-year rate of overall survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 84%; P = .142).

In multivariate analyses, ezrin negativity was associated with a near doubling of the risk of disease-specific survival events (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.20) and with a trend toward poorer overall survival. Moesin negativity was not independently associated with either outcome.

“Negative expression of ezrin was associated with major prognostic factors in renal cancer and significantly influenced tumor-related death,” Dr. Ferrari and coinvestigators summarize, noting that this aligns with the pattern seen in bladder and ovarian cancers, but contrasts with the pattern seen in head and neck, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers.

“The exact mechanism by which negative ezrin expression influences tumor progression and survival rates is unknown,” they conclude. “We encourage further prospective studies to analyze ezrin to determine its value in the prognosis of clear cell RCC.”

Dr. Ferrari disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

SOURCE: Ferrari MVO et al. Urol Oncol. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.09.011.
 

Patients whose clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors lack the cytoskeleton linker protein ezrin have a poorer prognosis, finds a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The number of small renal masses discovered incidentally is rising, and some of these tumors can or must be treated less aggressively, according to lead investigator Marcos Vinicius O. Ferrari, MD, urology division, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, and coinvestigators. “Thus, it is important to identify molecular markers that have prognostic value that can assist physicians in therapeutic strategies.”

The investigators studied 575 consecutive patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for clear cell RCC during 1985-2016. A single pathologist reclassified all cases and determined the most representative tumor areas for tissue immunohistochemistry for ezrin and moesin, proteins that link the actin cytoskeleton to the cell membrane and that play roles in cell adhesion, migration, and growth.

Results reported in Urologic Oncology showed that 18.3% of tumors were negative for ezrin and 2.8% were negative for moesin.

Compared with counterparts who had ezrin-positive tumors, patients with ezrin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P less than .001); were less likely to have incidentally discovered tumors (P = .007); and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .012), synchronous metastasis (P less than .001), and an International Society of Urological Pathology histologic grade of 3 or 4 (P = .025).

Similarly, compared with counterparts who had moesin-positive tumors, patients with moesin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P = .025) and pathologic N stage (P = .007), and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .027).

The 10-year rate of disease-specific survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (70% vs. 88%; P less than .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .065). Similarly, the 10-year rate of overall survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 84%; P = .142).

In multivariate analyses, ezrin negativity was associated with a near doubling of the risk of disease-specific survival events (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.20) and with a trend toward poorer overall survival. Moesin negativity was not independently associated with either outcome.

“Negative expression of ezrin was associated with major prognostic factors in renal cancer and significantly influenced tumor-related death,” Dr. Ferrari and coinvestigators summarize, noting that this aligns with the pattern seen in bladder and ovarian cancers, but contrasts with the pattern seen in head and neck, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers.

“The exact mechanism by which negative ezrin expression influences tumor progression and survival rates is unknown,” they conclude. “We encourage further prospective studies to analyze ezrin to determine its value in the prognosis of clear cell RCC.”

Dr. Ferrari disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

SOURCE: Ferrari MVO et al. Urol Oncol. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.09.011.
 

Patients whose clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors lack the cytoskeleton linker protein ezrin have a poorer prognosis, finds a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The number of small renal masses discovered incidentally is rising, and some of these tumors can or must be treated less aggressively, according to lead investigator Marcos Vinicius O. Ferrari, MD, urology division, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, and coinvestigators. “Thus, it is important to identify molecular markers that have prognostic value that can assist physicians in therapeutic strategies.”

The investigators studied 575 consecutive patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for clear cell RCC during 1985-2016. A single pathologist reclassified all cases and determined the most representative tumor areas for tissue immunohistochemistry for ezrin and moesin, proteins that link the actin cytoskeleton to the cell membrane and that play roles in cell adhesion, migration, and growth.

Results reported in Urologic Oncology showed that 18.3% of tumors were negative for ezrin and 2.8% were negative for moesin.

Compared with counterparts who had ezrin-positive tumors, patients with ezrin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P less than .001); were less likely to have incidentally discovered tumors (P = .007); and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .012), synchronous metastasis (P less than .001), and an International Society of Urological Pathology histologic grade of 3 or 4 (P = .025).

Similarly, compared with counterparts who had moesin-positive tumors, patients with moesin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P = .025) and pathologic N stage (P = .007), and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .027).

The 10-year rate of disease-specific survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (70% vs. 88%; P less than .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .065). Similarly, the 10-year rate of overall survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 84%; P = .142).

In multivariate analyses, ezrin negativity was associated with a near doubling of the risk of disease-specific survival events (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.20) and with a trend toward poorer overall survival. Moesin negativity was not independently associated with either outcome.

“Negative expression of ezrin was associated with major prognostic factors in renal cancer and significantly influenced tumor-related death,” Dr. Ferrari and coinvestigators summarize, noting that this aligns with the pattern seen in bladder and ovarian cancers, but contrasts with the pattern seen in head and neck, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers.

“The exact mechanism by which negative ezrin expression influences tumor progression and survival rates is unknown,” they conclude. “We encourage further prospective studies to analyze ezrin to determine its value in the prognosis of clear cell RCC.”

Dr. Ferrari disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

SOURCE: Ferrari MVO et al. Urol Oncol. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.09.011.
 

Some patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can safely undergo nephrectomy and experience favorable surgical outcomes and pathologic responses, a cohort study suggests.

“The introduction of several novel classes of systemic therapies, including targeted therapies and most recently ICI, has revolutionized the management of metastatic RCC over the last decade,” noted the investigators, who were led by Nirmish Singla, MD, from the department of urology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “With these new therapies, the role of nephrectomy in the treatment paradigm for advanced RCC has continued to evolve.”

The investigators undertook a single-center retrospective cohort study, assessing outcomes of 11 nephrectomies (10 radical, 1 partial) in 10 patients with advanced RCC who had received ICIs. Half had received nivolumab (Opdivo) alone, while the other half had received nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (Yervoy); in six patients, these therapies were given first line.

Study results reported in Urologic Oncology showed that, at the time of nephrectomy, the patients had a median age of 64 years, with a range from 41 years to 83 years. Surgery was performed laparoscopically in five cases, and four patients had a concomitant thrombectomy.

The median operative time was 180 minutes, and the median estimated blood loss was 100 mL. None of the patients experienced major intraoperative complications. Four experienced postoperative complications; in three, they were addressed with interventional radiology procedures. The median length of stay was 4 days.

Pathology findings showed that one patient achieved a response to immunotherapy in the primary tumor (pT0), and three of four patients who underwent resection of hepatic, pulmonary, or adrenal metastases had no detectable cancer (pM0). All surgical margins were negative.

During a median postoperative follow-up of 180 days, one patient died of progressive disease more than 3 months after surgery, and another died of pulmonary embolism complicated by sepsis. Six patients did not have any complications or readmissions.

“In our experience, nephrectomy following ICI for RCC is both safe and technically feasible. Surgical and postoperative outcomes are encouraging, and pathologic response to ICI is strikingly favorable in both the primary tumor and metastatic sites,” Dr. Singla and coinvestigators wrote. “Biopsies of lesions responding radiographically to ICIs should be considered prior to surgical excision.”

“As multimodal management in the immunotherapy era continues to evolve, the utility and timing of nephrectomy combined with ICI in selected patients warrants further study,” they conclude.

Dr. Singla disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Singla N et al. Urol Oncol. 2019 Sep 12. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.08.012.

Some patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can safely undergo nephrectomy and experience favorable surgical outcomes and pathologic responses, a cohort study suggests.

“The introduction of several novel classes of systemic therapies, including targeted therapies and most recently ICI, has revolutionized the management of metastatic RCC over the last decade,” noted the investigators, who were led by Nirmish Singla, MD, from the department of urology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “With these new therapies, the role of nephrectomy in the treatment paradigm for advanced RCC has continued to evolve.”

The investigators undertook a single-center retrospective cohort study, assessing outcomes of 11 nephrectomies (10 radical, 1 partial) in 10 patients with advanced RCC who had received ICIs. Half had received nivolumab (Opdivo) alone, while the other half had received nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (Yervoy); in six patients, these therapies were given first line.

Study results reported in Urologic Oncology showed that, at the time of nephrectomy, the patients had a median age of 64 years, with a range from 41 years to 83 years. Surgery was performed laparoscopically in five cases, and four patients had a concomitant thrombectomy.

The median operative time was 180 minutes, and the median estimated blood loss was 100 mL. None of the patients experienced major intraoperative complications. Four experienced postoperative complications; in three, they were addressed with interventional radiology procedures. The median length of stay was 4 days.

Pathology findings showed that one patient achieved a response to immunotherapy in the primary tumor (pT0), and three of four patients who underwent resection of hepatic, pulmonary, or adrenal metastases had no detectable cancer (pM0). All surgical margins were negative.

During a median postoperative follow-up of 180 days, one patient died of progressive disease more than 3 months after surgery, and another died of pulmonary embolism complicated by sepsis. Six patients did not have any complications or readmissions.

“In our experience, nephrectomy following ICI for RCC is both safe and technically feasible. Surgical and postoperative outcomes are encouraging, and pathologic response to ICI is strikingly favorable in both the primary tumor and metastatic sites,” Dr. Singla and coinvestigators wrote. “Biopsies of lesions responding radiographically to ICIs should be considered prior to surgical excision.”

“As multimodal management in the immunotherapy era continues to evolve, the utility and timing of nephrectomy combined with ICI in selected patients warrants further study,” they conclude.

Dr. Singla disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Singla N et al. Urol Oncol. 2019 Sep 12. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.08.012.

Some patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can safely undergo nephrectomy and experience favorable surgical outcomes and pathologic responses, a cohort study suggests.

“The introduction of several novel classes of systemic therapies, including targeted therapies and most recently ICI, has revolutionized the management of metastatic RCC over the last decade,” noted the investigators, who were led by Nirmish Singla, MD, from the department of urology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “With these new therapies, the role of nephrectomy in the treatment paradigm for advanced RCC has continued to evolve.”

The investigators undertook a single-center retrospective cohort study, assessing outcomes of 11 nephrectomies (10 radical, 1 partial) in 10 patients with advanced RCC who had received ICIs. Half had received nivolumab (Opdivo) alone, while the other half had received nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (Yervoy); in six patients, these therapies were given first line.

Study results reported in Urologic Oncology showed that, at the time of nephrectomy, the patients had a median age of 64 years, with a range from 41 years to 83 years. Surgery was performed laparoscopically in five cases, and four patients had a concomitant thrombectomy.

The median operative time was 180 minutes, and the median estimated blood loss was 100 mL. None of the patients experienced major intraoperative complications. Four experienced postoperative complications; in three, they were addressed with interventional radiology procedures. The median length of stay was 4 days.

Pathology findings showed that one patient achieved a response to immunotherapy in the primary tumor (pT0), and three of four patients who underwent resection of hepatic, pulmonary, or adrenal metastases had no detectable cancer (pM0). All surgical margins were negative.

During a median postoperative follow-up of 180 days, one patient died of progressive disease more than 3 months after surgery, and another died of pulmonary embolism complicated by sepsis. Six patients did not have any complications or readmissions.

“In our experience, nephrectomy following ICI for RCC is both safe and technically feasible. Surgical and postoperative outcomes are encouraging, and pathologic response to ICI is strikingly favorable in both the primary tumor and metastatic sites,” Dr. Singla and coinvestigators wrote. “Biopsies of lesions responding radiographically to ICIs should be considered prior to surgical excision.”

“As multimodal management in the immunotherapy era continues to evolve, the utility and timing of nephrectomy combined with ICI in selected patients warrants further study,” they conclude.

Dr. Singla disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Singla N et al. Urol Oncol. 2019 Sep 12. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.08.012.

A new analysis of 40 years of U.S. cancer data underscores the importance of looking at multiple metrics to discern the complex interplay of factors influencing cancer burden in the population. Findings showed that the epidemiologic signature – a composite of two or three key metrics – differed across cancer types and was favorable in some cases and unfavorable in others.

“Epidemiologic signatures that illustrate trends in population-based data on cancer burden provide insight into true cancer occurrence, overdiagnosis, and treatment advances,” explain the analysts, led by H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are important indicators of the potential contribution of environmental exposures, primary preventive interventions, new treatments, and changing diagnostic and screening practices.”

Dr. Welch and colleagues analyzed data for the years 1975 through 2015, assessing juxtaposed trends in incidence, mortality, and, when available, metastatic incidence (cancer already metastatic at diagnosis) for 11 cancers individually and for all cancers combined. Incidence data combining invasive and in situ cancers were obtained from the original nine Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries, and mortality data were obtained from the National Vital Statistics System.

The analysts then explored implications of the epidemiologic signatures as they pertain to true cancer occurrence (the underlying incidence of clinically meaningful cancer), overdiagnosis (detection of cancers that will not cause symptoms or death), and treatment advances.
 

Individual cancers

Findings of the analysis, published in a special report in the New England Journal of Medicine, revealed three broad categories of epidemiologic signatures having different implications for the public health and oncology fields.

Desirable signatures showed, for example, declining mortality against a backdrop of stable incidence over the 40-year period, signaling improved treatment, as seen for chronic myeloid leukemia following introduction of imatinib (Gleevec), according to the analysts. Lung cancer incidence and mortality rose and fell in tandem, reflecting an increase in smoking followed by a decrease in response to prevention efforts. Stomach, cervical, and colorectal cancers had both falling incidence – likely reflecting a true decline in occurrence related to prevention and/or screening detection and subsequent treatment of precancerous lesions – and falling mortality.

Undesirable signatures showed a rising incidence juxtaposed with stable mortality and stable or rising metastatic incidence, signaling likely overdiagnosis, Dr. Welch and colleagues proposed. Three cancers—thyroid cancer, kidney cancer, and melanoma—fell into this category; for thyroid cancer and melanoma, fairly recent upticks in metastatic incidence may reflect upstaging.

Finally, some signatures showed mixed signals, with rising incidence and falling mortality. Breast cancer incidence rose and stabilized, coinciding with introduction of screening mammography, and possibly reflecting an increase in true cancer occurrence or overdiagnosis (with stable metastatic incidence favoring the latter), the analysts speculate. Declining mortality since the 1990s may be due to improved treatment or screening, or both. Prostate cancer incidence rose sharply with introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening but then fell to initial levels, suggesting sensitivity of this cancer to diagnostic scrutiny. Falling metastatic incidence indicates screening leads to earlier diagnosis in some cases, while declining mortality starting in the 1990s may again reflect improved treatment or screening, or both.
 

All cancers

The epidemiologic signature for all cancers combined differed somewhat by sex. Women had a rising incidence during the 1980s that was mainly driven by lung and breast cancers, according to Dr. Welch and colleagues; a continued rise since the mid-1990s was largely driven by melanoma, kidney cancer, and thyroid cancer. Declining mortality since 1990 has been primarily due to reductions in deaths from breast and colorectal cancers, and, more recently, lung cancer.

Men had a “volatile pattern” in the incidence of all cancers combined that was attributable to prostate cancer trends; drops in lung and colorectal cancer incidences were offset by rises in melanoma and kidney cancer incidences, the analysts proposed. Declining mortality since 1990 was more marked than that among women and reflects a longer period of decline in lung cancer mortality, plus reductions in deaths from prostate cancer and colorectal cancer.

“Falling mortality means that there has been real progress against cancer in the past 40 years – largely reflecting improved treatment and the decline of a uniquely powerful causal factor: cigarette smoking,” Dr. Welch and colleagues noted. “The lack of an accompanying fall in incidence is an unfortunate side effect of early cancer-detection efforts.”

Dr. Welch reported that he had no relevant disclosures. The analysis did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Welch HG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1378-86. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1905447.

A new analysis of 40 years of U.S. cancer data underscores the importance of looking at multiple metrics to discern the complex interplay of factors influencing cancer burden in the population. Findings showed that the epidemiologic signature – a composite of two or three key metrics – differed across cancer types and was favorable in some cases and unfavorable in others.

“Epidemiologic signatures that illustrate trends in population-based data on cancer burden provide insight into true cancer occurrence, overdiagnosis, and treatment advances,” explain the analysts, led by H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are important indicators of the potential contribution of environmental exposures, primary preventive interventions, new treatments, and changing diagnostic and screening practices.”

Dr. Welch and colleagues analyzed data for the years 1975 through 2015, assessing juxtaposed trends in incidence, mortality, and, when available, metastatic incidence (cancer already metastatic at diagnosis) for 11 cancers individually and for all cancers combined. Incidence data combining invasive and in situ cancers were obtained from the original nine Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries, and mortality data were obtained from the National Vital Statistics System.

The analysts then explored implications of the epidemiologic signatures as they pertain to true cancer occurrence (the underlying incidence of clinically meaningful cancer), overdiagnosis (detection of cancers that will not cause symptoms or death), and treatment advances.
 

Individual cancers

Findings of the analysis, published in a special report in the New England Journal of Medicine, revealed three broad categories of epidemiologic signatures having different implications for the public health and oncology fields.

Desirable signatures showed, for example, declining mortality against a backdrop of stable incidence over the 40-year period, signaling improved treatment, as seen for chronic myeloid leukemia following introduction of imatinib (Gleevec), according to the analysts. Lung cancer incidence and mortality rose and fell in tandem, reflecting an increase in smoking followed by a decrease in response to prevention efforts. Stomach, cervical, and colorectal cancers had both falling incidence – likely reflecting a true decline in occurrence related to prevention and/or screening detection and subsequent treatment of precancerous lesions – and falling mortality.

Undesirable signatures showed a rising incidence juxtaposed with stable mortality and stable or rising metastatic incidence, signaling likely overdiagnosis, Dr. Welch and colleagues proposed. Three cancers—thyroid cancer, kidney cancer, and melanoma—fell into this category; for thyroid cancer and melanoma, fairly recent upticks in metastatic incidence may reflect upstaging.

Finally, some signatures showed mixed signals, with rising incidence and falling mortality. Breast cancer incidence rose and stabilized, coinciding with introduction of screening mammography, and possibly reflecting an increase in true cancer occurrence or overdiagnosis (with stable metastatic incidence favoring the latter), the analysts speculate. Declining mortality since the 1990s may be due to improved treatment or screening, or both. Prostate cancer incidence rose sharply with introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening but then fell to initial levels, suggesting sensitivity of this cancer to diagnostic scrutiny. Falling metastatic incidence indicates screening leads to earlier diagnosis in some cases, while declining mortality starting in the 1990s may again reflect improved treatment or screening, or both.
 

All cancers

The epidemiologic signature for all cancers combined differed somewhat by sex. Women had a rising incidence during the 1980s that was mainly driven by lung and breast cancers, according to Dr. Welch and colleagues; a continued rise since the mid-1990s was largely driven by melanoma, kidney cancer, and thyroid cancer. Declining mortality since 1990 has been primarily due to reductions in deaths from breast and colorectal cancers, and, more recently, lung cancer.

Men had a “volatile pattern” in the incidence of all cancers combined that was attributable to prostate cancer trends; drops in lung and colorectal cancer incidences were offset by rises in melanoma and kidney cancer incidences, the analysts proposed. Declining mortality since 1990 was more marked than that among women and reflects a longer period of decline in lung cancer mortality, plus reductions in deaths from prostate cancer and colorectal cancer.

“Falling mortality means that there has been real progress against cancer in the past 40 years – largely reflecting improved treatment and the decline of a uniquely powerful causal factor: cigarette smoking,” Dr. Welch and colleagues noted. “The lack of an accompanying fall in incidence is an unfortunate side effect of early cancer-detection efforts.”

Dr. Welch reported that he had no relevant disclosures. The analysis did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Welch HG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1378-86. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1905447.

A new analysis of 40 years of U.S. cancer data underscores the importance of looking at multiple metrics to discern the complex interplay of factors influencing cancer burden in the population. Findings showed that the epidemiologic signature – a composite of two or three key metrics – differed across cancer types and was favorable in some cases and unfavorable in others.

“Epidemiologic signatures that illustrate trends in population-based data on cancer burden provide insight into true cancer occurrence, overdiagnosis, and treatment advances,” explain the analysts, led by H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are important indicators of the potential contribution of environmental exposures, primary preventive interventions, new treatments, and changing diagnostic and screening practices.”

Dr. Welch and colleagues analyzed data for the years 1975 through 2015, assessing juxtaposed trends in incidence, mortality, and, when available, metastatic incidence (cancer already metastatic at diagnosis) for 11 cancers individually and for all cancers combined. Incidence data combining invasive and in situ cancers were obtained from the original nine Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries, and mortality data were obtained from the National Vital Statistics System.

The analysts then explored implications of the epidemiologic signatures as they pertain to true cancer occurrence (the underlying incidence of clinically meaningful cancer), overdiagnosis (detection of cancers that will not cause symptoms or death), and treatment advances.
 

Individual cancers

Findings of the analysis, published in a special report in the New England Journal of Medicine, revealed three broad categories of epidemiologic signatures having different implications for the public health and oncology fields.

Desirable signatures showed, for example, declining mortality against a backdrop of stable incidence over the 40-year period, signaling improved treatment, as seen for chronic myeloid leukemia following introduction of imatinib (Gleevec), according to the analysts. Lung cancer incidence and mortality rose and fell in tandem, reflecting an increase in smoking followed by a decrease in response to prevention efforts. Stomach, cervical, and colorectal cancers had both falling incidence – likely reflecting a true decline in occurrence related to prevention and/or screening detection and subsequent treatment of precancerous lesions – and falling mortality.

Undesirable signatures showed a rising incidence juxtaposed with stable mortality and stable or rising metastatic incidence, signaling likely overdiagnosis, Dr. Welch and colleagues proposed. Three cancers—thyroid cancer, kidney cancer, and melanoma—fell into this category; for thyroid cancer and melanoma, fairly recent upticks in metastatic incidence may reflect upstaging.

Finally, some signatures showed mixed signals, with rising incidence and falling mortality. Breast cancer incidence rose and stabilized, coinciding with introduction of screening mammography, and possibly reflecting an increase in true cancer occurrence or overdiagnosis (with stable metastatic incidence favoring the latter), the analysts speculate. Declining mortality since the 1990s may be due to improved treatment or screening, or both. Prostate cancer incidence rose sharply with introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening but then fell to initial levels, suggesting sensitivity of this cancer to diagnostic scrutiny. Falling metastatic incidence indicates screening leads to earlier diagnosis in some cases, while declining mortality starting in the 1990s may again reflect improved treatment or screening, or both.
 

All cancers

The epidemiologic signature for all cancers combined differed somewhat by sex. Women had a rising incidence during the 1980s that was mainly driven by lung and breast cancers, according to Dr. Welch and colleagues; a continued rise since the mid-1990s was largely driven by melanoma, kidney cancer, and thyroid cancer. Declining mortality since 1990 has been primarily due to reductions in deaths from breast and colorectal cancers, and, more recently, lung cancer.

Men had a “volatile pattern” in the incidence of all cancers combined that was attributable to prostate cancer trends; drops in lung and colorectal cancer incidences were offset by rises in melanoma and kidney cancer incidences, the analysts proposed. Declining mortality since 1990 was more marked than that among women and reflects a longer period of decline in lung cancer mortality, plus reductions in deaths from prostate cancer and colorectal cancer.

“Falling mortality means that there has been real progress against cancer in the past 40 years – largely reflecting improved treatment and the decline of a uniquely powerful causal factor: cigarette smoking,” Dr. Welch and colleagues noted. “The lack of an accompanying fall in incidence is an unfortunate side effect of early cancer-detection efforts.”

Dr. Welch reported that he had no relevant disclosures. The analysis did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Welch HG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1378-86. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1905447.

There is no significant difference in response or survival rates between the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi-nivo) and immuno-oncology plus vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition (IOVE) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Therefore, the treatment should probably be directed by patient preferences, among other things, Shaan Dudani, MD, and colleagues wrote in European Oncology.

“Given the current lack of evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between treatment strategies, patients, clinicians and policy makers are likely to take into account other considerations, such as toxicity, cost, logistics, prognostic categories, and patient preferences in deciding between the various front-line [immuno-oncology] combination regimens,” wrote Dr. Dudani, of the University of Calgary, and coauthors.

The team examined response rates among 263 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset. Patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination (n = 113) were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo (n = 75). Patients were about 62 years old. The most common sites of metastasis were liver (about 20%) and bone (about 33%), and about 20% had sarcomatoid features (about 20%). Most (about 75%) had multiple metastatic sites.

Thirty percent of those in the IOVE group and 40% in the ipi-nivo group had received second-line treatments. These included axitinib, levantinib plus severolimus, nivolumab alone, pazopanib, and sunitinib, as well as other treatments.

At a mean follow-up of 11.7 months, the response rates were 33% for IOVE and 40% for ipi-nivo. This difference was not statistically significant (between group difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, –8% to 22%; P = .4). Complete response occurred in 2% in IOVE and 5% of the ipi-nivo group.

The time to treatment failure was 14.3 months for IOVE and 10.2 months for ipi-nivo – again not a significant difference (P = .2). Time to next treatment also was not significantly different (19.7 vs. 17.9 months; P = .4). Neither group met the study’s overall survival goal.

After adjustment for IMDC risk score, hazard ratios for death were 0.71 for IOVE and 1.74 for ipi-nivo. There were no significant between-group differences when comparing intermediate- and poor-risk patients or when the analysis was restricted only to favorable-risk patients. Among 55 who received second-line therapy, there was also no significant difference in time to treatment failure.

“It was interesting, though not surprising, to observe that the majority [88%] of second-line therapies in this cohort were VEGF-based following ipi-nivo vs. IOVE combinations,” the authors noted. “The higher response rates observed in patients receiving second-line VEGF combinations is noteworthy and thought provoking. Biologically, it is plausible that VEGF-based second-line therapy would be more likely to be effective in the VEGF-naive ipi-nivo cohort. It remains to be seen whether the numerical difference in time to treatment failure becomes significant with increased sample size and further follow-up, and whether this contributes to differences in overall survival, which ultimately impacts treatment selections in the first-line setting.”

Dr. Dudani had no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dudani S et al. Euro Onc. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.048.
 

There is no significant difference in response or survival rates between the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi-nivo) and immuno-oncology plus vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition (IOVE) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Therefore, the treatment should probably be directed by patient preferences, among other things, Shaan Dudani, MD, and colleagues wrote in European Oncology.

“Given the current lack of evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between treatment strategies, patients, clinicians and policy makers are likely to take into account other considerations, such as toxicity, cost, logistics, prognostic categories, and patient preferences in deciding between the various front-line [immuno-oncology] combination regimens,” wrote Dr. Dudani, of the University of Calgary, and coauthors.

The team examined response rates among 263 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset. Patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination (n = 113) were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo (n = 75). Patients were about 62 years old. The most common sites of metastasis were liver (about 20%) and bone (about 33%), and about 20% had sarcomatoid features (about 20%). Most (about 75%) had multiple metastatic sites.

Thirty percent of those in the IOVE group and 40% in the ipi-nivo group had received second-line treatments. These included axitinib, levantinib plus severolimus, nivolumab alone, pazopanib, and sunitinib, as well as other treatments.

At a mean follow-up of 11.7 months, the response rates were 33% for IOVE and 40% for ipi-nivo. This difference was not statistically significant (between group difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, –8% to 22%; P = .4). Complete response occurred in 2% in IOVE and 5% of the ipi-nivo group.

The time to treatment failure was 14.3 months for IOVE and 10.2 months for ipi-nivo – again not a significant difference (P = .2). Time to next treatment also was not significantly different (19.7 vs. 17.9 months; P = .4). Neither group met the study’s overall survival goal.

After adjustment for IMDC risk score, hazard ratios for death were 0.71 for IOVE and 1.74 for ipi-nivo. There were no significant between-group differences when comparing intermediate- and poor-risk patients or when the analysis was restricted only to favorable-risk patients. Among 55 who received second-line therapy, there was also no significant difference in time to treatment failure.

“It was interesting, though not surprising, to observe that the majority [88%] of second-line therapies in this cohort were VEGF-based following ipi-nivo vs. IOVE combinations,” the authors noted. “The higher response rates observed in patients receiving second-line VEGF combinations is noteworthy and thought provoking. Biologically, it is plausible that VEGF-based second-line therapy would be more likely to be effective in the VEGF-naive ipi-nivo cohort. It remains to be seen whether the numerical difference in time to treatment failure becomes significant with increased sample size and further follow-up, and whether this contributes to differences in overall survival, which ultimately impacts treatment selections in the first-line setting.”

Dr. Dudani had no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dudani S et al. Euro Onc. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.048.
 

There is no significant difference in response or survival rates between the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi-nivo) and immuno-oncology plus vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition (IOVE) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Therefore, the treatment should probably be directed by patient preferences, among other things, Shaan Dudani, MD, and colleagues wrote in European Oncology.

“Given the current lack of evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between treatment strategies, patients, clinicians and policy makers are likely to take into account other considerations, such as toxicity, cost, logistics, prognostic categories, and patient preferences in deciding between the various front-line [immuno-oncology] combination regimens,” wrote Dr. Dudani, of the University of Calgary, and coauthors.

The team examined response rates among 263 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset. Patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination (n = 113) were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo (n = 75). Patients were about 62 years old. The most common sites of metastasis were liver (about 20%) and bone (about 33%), and about 20% had sarcomatoid features (about 20%). Most (about 75%) had multiple metastatic sites.

Thirty percent of those in the IOVE group and 40% in the ipi-nivo group had received second-line treatments. These included axitinib, levantinib plus severolimus, nivolumab alone, pazopanib, and sunitinib, as well as other treatments.

At a mean follow-up of 11.7 months, the response rates were 33% for IOVE and 40% for ipi-nivo. This difference was not statistically significant (between group difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, –8% to 22%; P = .4). Complete response occurred in 2% in IOVE and 5% of the ipi-nivo group.

The time to treatment failure was 14.3 months for IOVE and 10.2 months for ipi-nivo – again not a significant difference (P = .2). Time to next treatment also was not significantly different (19.7 vs. 17.9 months; P = .4). Neither group met the study’s overall survival goal.

After adjustment for IMDC risk score, hazard ratios for death were 0.71 for IOVE and 1.74 for ipi-nivo. There were no significant between-group differences when comparing intermediate- and poor-risk patients or when the analysis was restricted only to favorable-risk patients. Among 55 who received second-line therapy, there was also no significant difference in time to treatment failure.

“It was interesting, though not surprising, to observe that the majority [88%] of second-line therapies in this cohort were VEGF-based following ipi-nivo vs. IOVE combinations,” the authors noted. “The higher response rates observed in patients receiving second-line VEGF combinations is noteworthy and thought provoking. Biologically, it is plausible that VEGF-based second-line therapy would be more likely to be effective in the VEGF-naive ipi-nivo cohort. It remains to be seen whether the numerical difference in time to treatment failure becomes significant with increased sample size and further follow-up, and whether this contributes to differences in overall survival, which ultimately impacts treatment selections in the first-line setting.”

Dr. Dudani had no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dudani S et al. Euro Onc. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.048.
 

Loss-of-function mutations in the PBRM1 gene are more common among patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) who have clinical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the mutations fall a little short of serving as clinical biomarkers, investigators say.

Among patients with metastatic ccRCC enrolled in a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial comparing nivolumab (Opdivo) with everolimus (Afinitor) in patients who had previously received antiangiogenic therapy, patients with responses to nivolumab were more than twice as likely as nonresponders to have a truncating loss-of-function mutation in PBRM1, reported Toni K. Choueiri, MD, and colleagues from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Patients with PBRM1 mutations were also more likely to have a clinical benefit (complete/partial response, or stable disease with tumor shrinkage and progression-free survival [PFS] of at least 6 months) as well as better PFS and overall survival than patients without mutations.

“The association of PBRM1 truncating mutations with response to anti–[programmed death-1] therapy was confirmed in an independent ccRCC cohort. However, key limitations restrict use of PBRM1 mutations as a clinical biomarker,” they wrote in a research letter to JAMA Oncology.

Those limitations include an only modest effect of mutations on response and survival, a lack of evidence for a PBRM1 mutation effect in the first-line setting, and a possible association between mutations and benefit from prior antiangiogenic therapies, they acknowledged.

Dr. Choueiri was a coauthor of a previous study of genomic correlates of response to ICIs in ccRCC, which found that PBRM1 loss may influence response to checkpoint inhibitors by altering global tumor-cell expression.

In the current study, he and his colleagues looked at archival tumor tissue from an independent cohort of 382 patients who were part of a larger phase 3 trial. Of this group, 189 were treated with nivolumab, and 193 were treated with everolimus. PBRM1 mutations were identified in 55 of the nivolumab-treated patients (29%) and in 45 of the everolimus-treated patients (23%).

When they looked at clinical responses, they found that 15 of 38 patients with response to nivolumab (39%) had truncating PBRM1 mutations, compared with 16 of 74 nonresponding patients (22%), which translated into an odds ratio for response of 2.34 (P = .04).

Similarly, PBRM1 mutations among nivolumab-treated patients were significantly associated with clinical benefit (OR, 2.14; P = .0497), PFS (hazard ratio for progression, 0.67; P = .03), and overall survival (HR, 0.65; P = .03).

In contrast, there were no significant associations in everolimus-treated patients between PBRM1 mutations and either response, PFS, or overall survival.

“The concomitant presence of other cellular or molecular features may further influence the findings described herein. Nonetheless, this validated association between PBRM1 alterations and ICI response in a large randomized study represents a further step toward the development of genomic predictors for immunotherapies in advanced RCC,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Choueiri disclosed personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and fees and grants from other companies. One coauthor is a Bristol-Myers Squibb employee and shareholder.

SOURCE: Choueiri TK et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3158.

Loss-of-function mutations in the PBRM1 gene are more common among patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) who have clinical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the mutations fall a little short of serving as clinical biomarkers, investigators say.

Among patients with metastatic ccRCC enrolled in a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial comparing nivolumab (Opdivo) with everolimus (Afinitor) in patients who had previously received antiangiogenic therapy, patients with responses to nivolumab were more than twice as likely as nonresponders to have a truncating loss-of-function mutation in PBRM1, reported Toni K. Choueiri, MD, and colleagues from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Patients with PBRM1 mutations were also more likely to have a clinical benefit (complete/partial response, or stable disease with tumor shrinkage and progression-free survival [PFS] of at least 6 months) as well as better PFS and overall survival than patients without mutations.

“The association of PBRM1 truncating mutations with response to anti–[programmed death-1] therapy was confirmed in an independent ccRCC cohort. However, key limitations restrict use of PBRM1 mutations as a clinical biomarker,” they wrote in a research letter to JAMA Oncology.

Those limitations include an only modest effect of mutations on response and survival, a lack of evidence for a PBRM1 mutation effect in the first-line setting, and a possible association between mutations and benefit from prior antiangiogenic therapies, they acknowledged.

Dr. Choueiri was a coauthor of a previous study of genomic correlates of response to ICIs in ccRCC, which found that PBRM1 loss may influence response to checkpoint inhibitors by altering global tumor-cell expression.

In the current study, he and his colleagues looked at archival tumor tissue from an independent cohort of 382 patients who were part of a larger phase 3 trial. Of this group, 189 were treated with nivolumab, and 193 were treated with everolimus. PBRM1 mutations were identified in 55 of the nivolumab-treated patients (29%) and in 45 of the everolimus-treated patients (23%).

When they looked at clinical responses, they found that 15 of 38 patients with response to nivolumab (39%) had truncating PBRM1 mutations, compared with 16 of 74 nonresponding patients (22%), which translated into an odds ratio for response of 2.34 (P = .04).

Similarly, PBRM1 mutations among nivolumab-treated patients were significantly associated with clinical benefit (OR, 2.14; P = .0497), PFS (hazard ratio for progression, 0.67; P = .03), and overall survival (HR, 0.65; P = .03).

In contrast, there were no significant associations in everolimus-treated patients between PBRM1 mutations and either response, PFS, or overall survival.

“The concomitant presence of other cellular or molecular features may further influence the findings described herein. Nonetheless, this validated association between PBRM1 alterations and ICI response in a large randomized study represents a further step toward the development of genomic predictors for immunotherapies in advanced RCC,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Choueiri disclosed personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and fees and grants from other companies. One coauthor is a Bristol-Myers Squibb employee and shareholder.

SOURCE: Choueiri TK et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3158.

Loss-of-function mutations in the PBRM1 gene are more common among patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) who have clinical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the mutations fall a little short of serving as clinical biomarkers, investigators say.

Among patients with metastatic ccRCC enrolled in a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial comparing nivolumab (Opdivo) with everolimus (Afinitor) in patients who had previously received antiangiogenic therapy, patients with responses to nivolumab were more than twice as likely as nonresponders to have a truncating loss-of-function mutation in PBRM1, reported Toni K. Choueiri, MD, and colleagues from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Patients with PBRM1 mutations were also more likely to have a clinical benefit (complete/partial response, or stable disease with tumor shrinkage and progression-free survival [PFS] of at least 6 months) as well as better PFS and overall survival than patients without mutations.

“The association of PBRM1 truncating mutations with response to anti–[programmed death-1] therapy was confirmed in an independent ccRCC cohort. However, key limitations restrict use of PBRM1 mutations as a clinical biomarker,” they wrote in a research letter to JAMA Oncology.

Those limitations include an only modest effect of mutations on response and survival, a lack of evidence for a PBRM1 mutation effect in the first-line setting, and a possible association between mutations and benefit from prior antiangiogenic therapies, they acknowledged.

Dr. Choueiri was a coauthor of a previous study of genomic correlates of response to ICIs in ccRCC, which found that PBRM1 loss may influence response to checkpoint inhibitors by altering global tumor-cell expression.

In the current study, he and his colleagues looked at archival tumor tissue from an independent cohort of 382 patients who were part of a larger phase 3 trial. Of this group, 189 were treated with nivolumab, and 193 were treated with everolimus. PBRM1 mutations were identified in 55 of the nivolumab-treated patients (29%) and in 45 of the everolimus-treated patients (23%).

When they looked at clinical responses, they found that 15 of 38 patients with response to nivolumab (39%) had truncating PBRM1 mutations, compared with 16 of 74 nonresponding patients (22%), which translated into an odds ratio for response of 2.34 (P = .04).

Similarly, PBRM1 mutations among nivolumab-treated patients were significantly associated with clinical benefit (OR, 2.14; P = .0497), PFS (hazard ratio for progression, 0.67; P = .03), and overall survival (HR, 0.65; P = .03).

In contrast, there were no significant associations in everolimus-treated patients between PBRM1 mutations and either response, PFS, or overall survival.

“The concomitant presence of other cellular or molecular features may further influence the findings described herein. Nonetheless, this validated association between PBRM1 alterations and ICI response in a large randomized study represents a further step toward the development of genomic predictors for immunotherapies in advanced RCC,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Choueiri disclosed personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and fees and grants from other companies. One coauthor is a Bristol-Myers Squibb employee and shareholder.

SOURCE: Choueiri TK et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3158.

For patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) may be an effective alternative to surgery, according to findings from a retrospective study.

Patients with smaller tumors and nonmetastatic disease achieved the best outcomes with SABR, reported lead author Rodney E. Wegner, MD, of Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Radiation therapy is often overlooked in [RCC] as historic preclinical data reported RCC as being relatively radioresistant to external beam radiation at conventional doses,” the investigators wrote in Advances in Radiation Oncology. However, SABR may be able to overcome this resistance by delivering “highly conformal dose escalated radiation,” the investigators noted, citing two recent reports from the International Radiosurgery Oncology Consortium for Kidney (IROCK) that showed promising results (J Urol. 2019 Jun;201[6]:1097-104 and Cancer. 2018 Mar 1;124[5]:934-42).

The present study included 347 patients with RCC from the National Cancer Database who were treated with SABR and not surgery. Most patients (94%) did not have systemic therapy. Similar proportions lacked lymph node involvement (97%) or distant metastasis (93%). About three-quarters of patients (76%) had T1 disease. The median SABR dose was 45 Gy, ranging from 35 to 54 Gy, most frequently given in three fractions.

After a median follow-up of 36 months, ranging from 1 to 156 months, median overall survival across all patients was 58 months. SABR was most effective for patients with nonmetastatic disease who had smaller tumors.

An inverse correlation between tumor size and overall survival was apparent given that patients with tumors 2.5 cm or smaller had the longest median overall survival, at 92 months, with decrements in survival as tumors got larger. Survival dropped to 88 months for tumors 2.6-3.5 cm, 44 months for tumors 3.5-5.0 cm, and finally to 26 months for tumors larger than 5.0 cm. In addition to tumor size and metastatic disease, age was a risk factor for shorter survival.

“The results presented demonstrate excellent post-SABR outcomes, with median overall survival in the range of 7-8 years for smaller lesions,” the investigators wrote. “This is particularly impressive considering that many of these patients were likely medically inoperable.”

The researchers noted that most of kidney SABR is done at academic centers, which highlights the importance of appropriate technology and training for delivering this treatment.

“Further prospective research is needed to verify its safety and efficacy,” the investigators concluded.

No external funding was provided for the project and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wegner RE et al. Adv Rad Onc. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2019.07.018.
 

For patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) may be an effective alternative to surgery, according to findings from a retrospective study.

Patients with smaller tumors and nonmetastatic disease achieved the best outcomes with SABR, reported lead author Rodney E. Wegner, MD, of Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Radiation therapy is often overlooked in [RCC] as historic preclinical data reported RCC as being relatively radioresistant to external beam radiation at conventional doses,” the investigators wrote in Advances in Radiation Oncology. However, SABR may be able to overcome this resistance by delivering “highly conformal dose escalated radiation,” the investigators noted, citing two recent reports from the International Radiosurgery Oncology Consortium for Kidney (IROCK) that showed promising results (J Urol. 2019 Jun;201[6]:1097-104 and Cancer. 2018 Mar 1;124[5]:934-42).

The present study included 347 patients with RCC from the National Cancer Database who were treated with SABR and not surgery. Most patients (94%) did not have systemic therapy. Similar proportions lacked lymph node involvement (97%) or distant metastasis (93%). About three-quarters of patients (76%) had T1 disease. The median SABR dose was 45 Gy, ranging from 35 to 54 Gy, most frequently given in three fractions.

After a median follow-up of 36 months, ranging from 1 to 156 months, median overall survival across all patients was 58 months. SABR was most effective for patients with nonmetastatic disease who had smaller tumors.

An inverse correlation between tumor size and overall survival was apparent given that patients with tumors 2.5 cm or smaller had the longest median overall survival, at 92 months, with decrements in survival as tumors got larger. Survival dropped to 88 months for tumors 2.6-3.5 cm, 44 months for tumors 3.5-5.0 cm, and finally to 26 months for tumors larger than 5.0 cm. In addition to tumor size and metastatic disease, age was a risk factor for shorter survival.

“The results presented demonstrate excellent post-SABR outcomes, with median overall survival in the range of 7-8 years for smaller lesions,” the investigators wrote. “This is particularly impressive considering that many of these patients were likely medically inoperable.”

The researchers noted that most of kidney SABR is done at academic centers, which highlights the importance of appropriate technology and training for delivering this treatment.

“Further prospective research is needed to verify its safety and efficacy,” the investigators concluded.

No external funding was provided for the project and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wegner RE et al. Adv Rad Onc. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2019.07.018.
 

For patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) may be an effective alternative to surgery, according to findings from a retrospective study.

Patients with smaller tumors and nonmetastatic disease achieved the best outcomes with SABR, reported lead author Rodney E. Wegner, MD, of Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Radiation therapy is often overlooked in [RCC] as historic preclinical data reported RCC as being relatively radioresistant to external beam radiation at conventional doses,” the investigators wrote in Advances in Radiation Oncology. However, SABR may be able to overcome this resistance by delivering “highly conformal dose escalated radiation,” the investigators noted, citing two recent reports from the International Radiosurgery Oncology Consortium for Kidney (IROCK) that showed promising results (J Urol. 2019 Jun;201[6]:1097-104 and Cancer. 2018 Mar 1;124[5]:934-42).

The present study included 347 patients with RCC from the National Cancer Database who were treated with SABR and not surgery. Most patients (94%) did not have systemic therapy. Similar proportions lacked lymph node involvement (97%) or distant metastasis (93%). About three-quarters of patients (76%) had T1 disease. The median SABR dose was 45 Gy, ranging from 35 to 54 Gy, most frequently given in three fractions.

After a median follow-up of 36 months, ranging from 1 to 156 months, median overall survival across all patients was 58 months. SABR was most effective for patients with nonmetastatic disease who had smaller tumors.

An inverse correlation between tumor size and overall survival was apparent given that patients with tumors 2.5 cm or smaller had the longest median overall survival, at 92 months, with decrements in survival as tumors got larger. Survival dropped to 88 months for tumors 2.6-3.5 cm, 44 months for tumors 3.5-5.0 cm, and finally to 26 months for tumors larger than 5.0 cm. In addition to tumor size and metastatic disease, age was a risk factor for shorter survival.

“The results presented demonstrate excellent post-SABR outcomes, with median overall survival in the range of 7-8 years for smaller lesions,” the investigators wrote. “This is particularly impressive considering that many of these patients were likely medically inoperable.”

The researchers noted that most of kidney SABR is done at academic centers, which highlights the importance of appropriate technology and training for delivering this treatment.

“Further prospective research is needed to verify its safety and efficacy,” the investigators concluded.

No external funding was provided for the project and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wegner RE et al. Adv Rad Onc. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2019.07.018.