-
International Journal of Biological... 2023Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a serious threat to people's health due to its rapid progression, and patients easily develop resistance to targeted therapy. The absent in...
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a serious threat to people's health due to its rapid progression, and patients easily develop resistance to targeted therapy. The absent in melanoma 2 (AIM2) is a receptor protein that has recently been proposed to play an important role in various diseases. In this study, AIM2 was identified as a new biomarker of RCC and promoted RCC progression and sunitinib resistance in an inflammasome-independent manner. Mechanistically, AIM2 promoted FOXO3a phosphorylation and proteasome degradation, thereby reducing its transcriptional effect on ACSL4 and inhibiting ferroptosis. In summary, AIM2 promoted RCC progression and sunitinib resistance through FOXO3a-ACSL4 axis-regulated ferroptosis, which could provide new ideas and therapeutic targets for RCC diagnosis and treatment.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Sunitinib; Kidney Neoplasms; Ferroptosis; Cell Line, Tumor; Melanoma; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; DNA-Binding Proteins
PubMed: 36923928
DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.79853 -
Nature Medicine Jun 2018We describe results from IMmotion150, a randomized phase 2 study of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone or combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) versus sunitinib in 305... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
We describe results from IMmotion150, a randomized phase 2 study of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone or combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) versus sunitinib in 305 patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat and PD-L1+ populations. Intent-to-treat PFS hazard ratios for atezolizumab + bevacizumab or atezolizumab monotherapy versus sunitinib were 1.0 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-1.45) and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.82-1.71), respectively; PD-L1+ PFS hazard ratios were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.38-1.08) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.63-1.67), respectively. Exploratory biomarker analyses indicated that tumor mutation and neoantigen burden were not associated with PFS. Angiogenesis, T-effector/IFN-γ response, and myeloid inflammatory gene expression signatures were strongly and differentially associated with PFS within and across the treatments. These molecular profiles suggest that prediction of outcomes with anti-VEGF and immunotherapy may be possible and offer mechanistic insights into how blocking VEGF may overcome resistance to immune checkpoint blockade.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Female; Gene Expression Profiling; Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Mutation; Sunitinib; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29867230
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-018-0053-3 -
JAMA Oncology Feb 2019In clinical practice, patients with primary metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been offered cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) followed by targeted therapy, but the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparison of Immediate vs Deferred Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients With Synchronous Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Sunitinib: The SURTIME Randomized Clinical Trial.
IMPORTANCE
In clinical practice, patients with primary metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been offered cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) followed by targeted therapy, but the optimal sequence of surgery and systemic therapy is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To examine whether a period of sunitinib therapy before CN improves outcome compared with immediate CN followed by sunitinib.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This randomized clinical trial began as a phase 3 trial on July 14, 2010, and continued until March 24, 2016, with a median follow-up of 3.3 years and a clinical cutoff date for this report of May 5, 2017. Patients with mRCC of clear cell subtype, resectable primary tumor, and 3 or fewer surgical risk factors were studied.
INTERVENTIONS
Immediate CN followed by sunitinib therapy vs treatment with 3 cycles of sunitinib followed by CN in the absence of progression followed by sunitinib therapy.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Progression-free survival was the primary end point, which needed a sample size of 458 patients. Because of poor accrual, the independent data monitoring committee endorsed reporting the intention-to-treat 28-week progression-free rate (PFR) instead. Overall survival (OS), adverse events, and postoperative progression were secondary end points.
RESULTS
The study closed after 5.7 years with 99 patients (80 men and 19 women; mean [SD] age, 60 [8.5] years). The 28-week PFR was 42% in the immediate CN arm (n = 50) and 43% in the deferred CN arm (n = 49) (P = .61). The intention-to-treat OS hazard ratio of deferred vs immediate CN was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.34-0.95; P = .03), with a median OS of 32.4 months (95% CI, 14.5-65.3 months) in the deferred CN arm and 15.0 months (95% CI, 9.3-29.5 months) in the immediate CN arm. In the deferred CN arm, 48 of 49 patients (98%; 95% CI, 89%-100%) received sunitinib vs 40 of 50 (80%; 95% CI, 67%-89%) in the immediate arm. Systemic progression before planned CN in the deferred CN arm resulted in a per-protocol recommendation against nephrectomy in 14 patients (29%; 95% CI, 18%-43%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Deferred CN did not improve the 28-week PFR. With the deferred approach, more patients received sunitinib and OS results were higher. Pretreatment with sunitinib may identify patients with inherent resistance to systemic therapy before planned CN. This evidence complements recent data from randomized clinical trials to inform treatment decisions in patients with primary clear cell mRCC requiring sunitinib.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01099423.
Topics: Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Canada; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures; Disease Progression; Drug Administration Schedule; Europe; Female; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Nephrectomy; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Sunitinib; Time Factors
PubMed: 30543350
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.5543 -
JAMA Oncology Feb 2022Interim analyses of the IMmotion151 trial (A Study of Atezolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab Versus Sunitinib in Participants With Untreated Advanced Renal Cell... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Final Overall Survival and Molecular Analysis in IMmotion151, a Phase 3 Trial Comparing Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sunitinib in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.
IMPORTANCE
Interim analyses of the IMmotion151 trial (A Study of Atezolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab Versus Sunitinib in Participants With Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma) reported improved progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor bevacizumab vs the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib. Overall survival (OS) results were immature at interim analyses.
OBJECTIVE
To report the final OS results, safety, and exploratory biomarker analyses of the association of transcriptomic subgroups with OS in the IMmotion151 trial.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
IMmotion151 was a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial that compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with untreated mRCC. IMmotion151 included patients from 152 academic medical centers and community oncology practices in 21 countries. Adult patients with mRCC with components of clear cell or sarcomatoid histologic features, measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), adequate performance status, hematologic and end organ function, and tumor tissue available for PD-L1 testing were included. IMmotion151 was initiated on May 20, 2015, and the study is ongoing. This final analysis was performed from May 20, 2015, to February 14, 2020.
INTERVENTIONS
Receipt of 1200 mg of intravenous (IV) atezolizumab every 3 weeks and 15 mg/kg of IV bevacizumab every 3 weeks or 50 mg orally once daily of sunitinib (4 weeks on and 2 weeks off).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The coprimary end points were PFS (previously reported) in patients with PD-L1+ disease and OS in the intention-to-treat population. Additional exploratory outcomes included OS in the PD-L1+ population, association with transcriptomic subgroups, and safety.
RESULTS
The IMmotion151 trial assessed 915 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Mean (IQR) age was 62 (56-69) years for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 60 (54-66) years for patients receiving sunitinib; 669 (73.1%) were male and 246 (26.9%) were female. The final analysis showed similar median OS in patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in the intention-to-treat (36.1 vs 35.3 months) and PD-L1+ (38.7 vs 31.6 months) populations. No new safety signals were reported. The additional exploratory outcome of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib showed improved median OS trends in patients whose tumors were characterized by T-effector/proliferative, proliferative, or small nucleolar RNA transcriptomic profiles (35.4 vs 21.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The primary end point of PFS was met at interim analyses, although no improvement in OS was observed with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab at the final analysis. Biomarker analyses provided insight into which patients with mRCC may benefit from combined anti-PD-L1 and anti-VEGF therapy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02420821.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Female; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Sunitinib; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 34940781
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.5981 -
Advanced Science (Weinheim,... Sep 2021Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a malignant tumor of the kidneys. Approximately 70% of RCC cases are clear cell renal cell carcinoma with von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) gene...
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a malignant tumor of the kidneys. Approximately 70% of RCC cases are clear cell renal cell carcinoma with von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) gene mutation and activation of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting VEGF have emerged as promising agents for RCC treatment. Apart from primary resistance, acquired resistance to TKIs after initial tumor regression is common in RCC. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibition, including PD-1/PD-L1 blockade, alone or in combination with TKIs has improved the overall survival of patients with RCC. Ribonucleotide reductase subunit M2 (RRM2) has been reported in many types of cancer and has been implicated in tumor progression. However, the role of RRM2 in TKIs resistance in RCC remains unclear. In this study, the authors have demonstrated that RRM2 is upregulated in sunitinib-resistant RCC cells and patient tissues. They also find that RRM2 stabilizes ANXA1 and activates the AKT pathway independent of its ribonucleotide reductase activity, promoting sunitinib resistance in RCC. Moreover, RRM2 regulated antitumor immune responses, and knockdown of RRM2 enhance the anti-tumor efficiency of PD-1 blockade in renal cancer. Collectively, these results suggest that aberrantly expressed RRM2 may be a promising therapeutic target for RCC.
Topics: Annexin A1; Antineoplastic Agents; Cell Line; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Kidney Neoplasms; Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-akt; Ribonucleoside Diphosphate Reductase; Signal Transduction; Sunitinib
PubMed: 34319001
DOI: 10.1002/advs.202100881 -
Journal For Immunotherapy of Cancer Mar 2022The phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial demonstrated higher response rates and improved overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line therapy...
BACKGROUND
The phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial demonstrated higher response rates and improved overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line therapy for advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). An unmet need exists to identify patients with RCC who are most likely to benefit from treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab.
METHODS
In exploratory analyses, pretreatment levels of programmed death ligand 1 were assessed by immunohistochemistry. Genomic and transcriptomic biomarkers (including tumor mutational burden and gene expression signatures) were also investigated.
RESULTS
Biomarkers previously associated with benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor-containing regimens in RCC were not predictive for survival in patients with RCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Analysis of gene expression identified an association between an inflammatory response and progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab.
CONCLUSIONS
The exploratory analyses reveal relationships between molecular biomarkers and provide supportive data on how the inflammation status of the tumor microenvironment may be important for identifying predictive biomarkers of response and survival with combination immunotherapy in patients with RCC. Further validation may help to provide biomarker-driven precision treatment for patients with RCC.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Humans; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Nivolumab; Sunitinib; Tumor Microenvironment
PubMed: 35304405
DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-004316 -
Clinical Cancer Research : An Official... Jan 2021Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This analysis of the...
PURPOSE
Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
Of 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3-22.9); = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7; = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.86; = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged.
CONCLUSIONS
NIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population..
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Hippo Signaling Pathway; Humans; Immunotherapy; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Nivolumab; Protein Serine-Threonine Kinases; Sunitinib
PubMed: 32873572
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2063 -
Cancer Research Jan 2023Sunitinib resistance remains a serious challenge to the treatment of advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), yet the mechanisms underlying this resistance...
UNLABELLED
Sunitinib resistance remains a serious challenge to the treatment of advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), yet the mechanisms underlying this resistance are not fully understood. Here, we report that the long noncoding RNA IGFL2-AS1 is a driver of therapy resistance in RCC. IGFL2-AS1 was highly upregulated in sunitinib-resistant RCC cells and was associated with poor prognosis in patients with clear cell RCC (ccRCC) who received sunitinib therapy. IGFL2-AS1 enhanced TP53INP2 expression by competitively binding to hnRNPC, a multifunctional RNA-binding protein that posttranscriptionally suppresses TP53INP2 expression through alternative splicing. Upregulated TP53INP2 enhanced autophagy and ultimately led to sunitinib resistance. Meanwhile, IGFL2-AS1 was packaged into extracellular vesicles through hnRNPC, thus transmitting sunitinib resistance to other cells. N6-methyladenosine modification of IGFL2-AS1 was critical for its interaction with hnRNPC. In a patient-derived xenograft model of sunitinib-resistant ccRCC, injection of chitosan-solid lipid nanoparticles containing antisense oligonucleotide-IGFL2-AS1 successfully reversed sunitinib resistance. These findings indicate a novel molecular mechanism of sunitinib resistance in RCC and suggest that IGFL2-AS1 may serve as a prognostic indicator and potential therapeutic target to overcome resistance.
SIGNIFICANCE
Extracellular vesicle-packaged IGFL2-AS1 promotes sunitinib resistance by regulating TP53INP2-triggered autophagy, implicating this lncRNA as a potential therapeutic target in renal cell carcinoma.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Sunitinib; RNA, Long Noncoding; Kidney Neoplasms; Cell Line, Tumor; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Extracellular Vesicles; Cell Proliferation; Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic; Nuclear Proteins
PubMed: 36264173
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-21-3432 -
The Lancet. Oncology Oct 2019In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting.
METHODS
In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment.
FINDINGS
Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related.
INTERPRETATION
The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories.
FUNDING
Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.
Topics: Alanine Transaminase; Amylases; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Fatigue; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Hypertension; Intention to Treat Analysis; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Lipase; Nivolumab; Paresthesia; Progression-Free Survival; Sunitinib; Survival Rate
PubMed: 31427204
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30413-9 -
European Urology Mar 2022We present an exploratory post hoc analysis from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in a subgroup of 108... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
We present an exploratory post hoc analysis from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in a subgroup of 108 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, a population under-represented in clinical trials. Patients with clear cell aRCC were randomized to NIVO+IPI every 3 wk for four doses followed by NIVO monotherapy, or sunitinib every day for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and primary tumor shrinkage were assessed. PFS and ORR were assessed per independent radiology review committee using RECIST version 1.1. With minimum study follow-up of 4 yr for intent-to-treat patients, OS favored NIVO+IPI (n = 53) over sunitinib (n = 55; hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.0) among patients without prior nephrectomy. ORR was higher (34% vs 15%; p = 0.0041) and median duration of response was longer with NIVO+IPI versus sunitinib (20.5 vs 14.1 mo); the best overall response was partial response in either arm. A ≥30% reduction in the diameter of intact target renal tumors was achieved in 35% of patients with NIVO+IPI versus 20% with sunitinib. Safety was consistent with the global study population. In conclusion, in patients with aRCC without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, NIVO+IPI showed survival benefits and renal tumor reduction versus sunitinib. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02231749. PATIENT SUMMARY: In an exploratory analysis of a large global trial (CheckMate 214), we observed positive outcomes (both survival and tumor response to treatment) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in a subgroup of patients with advanced kidney cancer who did not undergo removal of their primary kidney tumor. This subset of patients represents a population that has not been studied in clinical trials and for whom outcomes with new immunotherapy combination regimens are not yet known. We conclude that treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab offers these patients a survival benefit versus sunitinib, consistent with that observed in the overall study, as well as a notable kidney tumor reduction.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Female; Humans; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Nephrectomy; Nivolumab; Sunitinib
PubMed: 34750035
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.10.001