Systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in treatment naïve patients: a risk-based approach

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (14) ◽  
pp. 2351-2362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald M Bukowski
Author(s):  
Andrew L. Schmidt ◽  
Alexandra L. Tabakin ◽  
Eric A. Singer ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Rana R. McKay

Systemic therapy for first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma has evolved toward immune checkpoint blockade combinations incorporating a PD-1/L1 inhibitor along with CTLA-4 inhibition or VEGF-targeted therapy. The new treatment paradigm that integrates immunotherapy for treatment-naïve advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma creates a new therapeutic challenge for clinicians including the optimal way to integrate multidisciplinary care involving surgery, radiotherapy, and application of contemporaneous systemic treatment in subsequent lines of therapy following discontinuation of combination therapy. We outline the available data for the multidisciplinary management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, systemic therapy options in the post–immune checkpoint blockade setting, and novel therapies in development for advanced renal cell carcinoma. We provide practical considerations to assist clinicians in treatment choice and map future directions for progress.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4513-4513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cora N. Sternberg ◽  
Tim Eisen ◽  
Piotr Tomczak ◽  
Andrew Louis Strahs ◽  
Brooke Esteves ◽  
...  

4513 Background: Tivozanib (T) is a potent, selective inhibitor of all three VEGF receptors with a long half-life of 4.5–5.1 days. Superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) with T versus sorafenib (S) were demonstrated in a Phase III trial (TIVO-1) in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) (in ITT population, PFS: 11.9 vs 9.1 months HR=0.797, 95% CI 0.639–0.993; P=0.042; ORR: 33% vs 23%, P=0.014). Hypertension was more common with T, while lower rates of certain off-target AEs and fewer dose adjustments relative to S were reported (J Clin Oncol 2012;30[suppl]:Abstract 4501). Here we present efficacy and safety analyses for the pre-specified subset of pts who received no prior systemic therapy for mRCC. Methods: In the ITT population (N=517), pts were treatment-naïve or had received no more than 1 prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease; pts receiving prior VEGF- or mTOR-targeted therapy were excluded. Pts were randomized 1:1 to T 1.5 mg/d (once daily, 3 weeks on, 1 week off) or S 400 mg/d (twice daily, continuously). Of these, 181 pts (70%) in each treatment arm had not received prior systemic therapy for mRCC. Results: In pts who received no prior systemic therapy for mRCC, demographics were well balanced between the 2 arms. Median PFS was 12.7 for T vs 9.1 months for S (HR=0.756, 95% CI 0.580–0.985, P=0.037). ORR was 34% for T vs 24% for S (P=0.038). The most common adverse event (AE; All grades/Grade ≥3) for T was hypertension (T: 40%/25% vs S: 35%/18%), suggesting “on-target” biological activity and was manageable medically, while the most common AE for S was hand-foot syndrome (T: 11%/2% vs S: 52%/16%). Other common AEs were diarrhea (T: 22%/2% vs S: 32%/7%), fatigue (T: 19%/6% vs S: 15%/3%), and weight decrease (T: 18%/1% vs S: 17%/2%). Dose reduction (T: 12% vs S: 42%) and interruption (T: 18% vs S: 35%) rates were lower in the T arm and similar to the ITT population. Conclusions: T demonstrated significant improvement in PFS and ORR compared with S in pts who had received no prior systemic therapy for metastatic RCC. T was generally well tolerated, with low rates of treatment-related reduction/interruption in this pre-specified subgroup of pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01030783.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Tucker ◽  
Landon C. Brown ◽  
Yu-Wei Chen ◽  
Chester Kao ◽  
Nathan Hirshman ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The identification of biomarkers to select patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) most likely to respond to combination immunotherapy (IO) is needed. We sought to investigate an association of the baseline neutrophil-to-eosinophil ratio (NER) with outcomes to nivolumab plus ipilimumab for patients with mRCC. Methods We performed a retrospective review of patients with clear cell mRCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab from Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and Duke Cancer Institute. Patients with prior receipt of immunotherapy and those without available baseline complete blood count with differential were excluded. Patients were divided into groups by the median baseline NER and analyzed for overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). Patients were also divided by median baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and analyzed for clinical outcome. Further analyses of patients above/below the median NER and NLR were performed in subgroups of IMDC intermediate/poor risk, IMDC favorable risk, and treatment naïve patients. Results A total of 110 patients were included: median age was 61 years and 75% were treatment naïve. The median NER (mNER) at baseline was 26.4. The ORR was 40% for patients with <mNER compared to 21.8% among patients with >mNER (OR 2.39, p = 0.04). The median PFS for patients with <mNER was significantly longer at 8.6 months (mo) compared to 3.2 mo for patients with >mNER (HR 0.50, p < 0.01). Median OS was not reached (NR) for patients with <mNER compared with 27.3 mo for patients with >mNER (HR 0.31, p < 0.01). The median NLR (mNLR) was 3.42. While patients with <mNLR showed improvement in OS (HR 0.42, p = 0.02), PFS and ORR did not differ compared with patients in the >mNLR group. Conclusions A lower baseline NER was associated with improved clinical outcomes (PFS, OS, and ORR) in patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and prospective validation of the baseline NER as a predictive biomarker for response to immunotherapy-based combinations in mRCC is warranted.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sei Naito ◽  
Osamu Ichiyanagi ◽  
Tomoyuki Kato ◽  
Hidenori Kanno ◽  
Takafumi Narisawa ◽  
...  

Abstract Data on the outcomes of third- or fourth-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are limited. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of therapy beyond the second line. We retrospectively analysed data of mRCC patients who underwent systemic therapy at Yamagata University Hospital. The best objective response (BOR), response rate (RR), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed for each line of treatment. To investigate the correlation between overall survival (OS) and the number of treatment lines during a patient’s lifetime, the median OS was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses. In the first-, second-, and third-line therapies, approximately 20% of patients had long PFS of >15 months. In targeted treatments beyond the third line, only one treatment suppressed disease progression for >10 months. Among patients who died during the follow-up period, those treated with triple and quadruple lines had similar OS (42.5 months vs. 48.4 months, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that patients with triple or more lines of therapy had better OS; however, quadruple or more lines of therapy was not an independent prognostic factor. We concluded that third-line systemic therapy could improve OS; however, fourth-line therapy could not.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document