scholarly journals A Contemporary Review of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 919
Author(s):  
Eun-mi Yu ◽  
Laura Linville ◽  
Matthew Rosenthal ◽  
Jeanny B. Aragon-Ching

The use of checkpoint inhibitors in advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) has rapidly evolved over the past several years. While immune-oncology (IO) drug therapy has been successful at resulting in improved responses and survival, combination therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors have further improved outcomes. This article reviews the landmark trials that have led to the approval of IO therapies, including the Checkmate 214 trial and combination IO/VEGF TKI therapies with Checkmate 9ER, CLEAR, and Keynote-426, and it includes a discussion on promising therapies moving in the future.

Medwave ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (05) ◽  
pp. e8202-e8202
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Canales Rojas

In the last decade, the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, with the potential for dramatic changes in the therapeutic landscape. Nivolumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibitor of transmem-brane programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), was approved as monotherapy in 2015 for advanced renal cell carcinoma in patients previously treated with an agent targeting vascular endothelial growth factor. In April 2018, the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitor, was approved for patients with previously untreated intermediate- and poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma. Then, in 2019, combination therapies consisting of pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) or avelumab (anti-PD-1 ligand, PD-L1) with axitinib (a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor) were also approved for use in all risk groups. This review pre-sents a brief historical review of the association between immunology and oncology; describes essential aspects of the mechanism of action of immune checkpoint inhibitors; discusses the current evidence regarding the clinical use of different immunotherapy regimens for the treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma, both clear cell and other histological types; and provides general information on their adverse effects. The role of appropriate patient selection is analyzed to allow individualization of therapy and improve the already promising results. Finally, per-spectives on the future use of immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat renal cancer are discussed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 675-675
Author(s):  
Johannes Van Der Mijn ◽  
Kenneth Eng ◽  
Evan Fernandez ◽  
Clara Oromendia ◽  
Tuo Zhang ◽  
...  

675 Background: The most frequent genomic alterations in patients (pts) with ccRCC have been identified in primary tumors. Here we investigated the genomic landscape of ccRCC in a cohort enriched for metastatic tumors after treatment with systemic therapy. Methods: We prospectively enrolled pts with ccRCC in a clinical study in which Whole-Exome Sequencing (WES) of normal and tumor tissue was performed. Clinical features, treatment outcome and survival were evaluated. Results: Forty-five pts with ccRCC with a median age of 65 years (range 38–86) were enrolled. According to the Heng risk criteria, 15 pts (33.3%) were classified as favorable-risk 23 pts (51.1%) were intermediate-risk and 7 pts (15.6%) were poor-risk. Pts received a median number of 3 lines (range 0–9) of therapy including cytokines (n=7), anti-VEGF (n=36), mTOR inhibitors (n=10) and/or immune checkpoint inhibitors (n=23). The median progression free survival (PFS) after treatment was 3.5 months (0.7-13.1), 11.1 months (1.1–54.2), 2.7 months (0.7-36.2) and 4.9 months (1.4–29.2) after cytokines, VEGF-, mTOR- and immune checkpoint inhibitors, respectively. The median overall survival (OS) from start of treatment to last follow up was 2.2 years (range 0.2–14.9 years). A total of 68 samples were sequenced. These included 9 (12.5%) primary tumors, 38 (55.9%) collected after treatment with anti-VEGF, 16 (23.5%) after mTOR- and 8 (11.8%) after immune checkpoint inhibitor. VHL, KDM5C, SETD2 and PBRM1 were the most frequent somatic mutations detected in this cohort. In two cases with a short and long response to VEGF targeted therapy (PFS 2.8 versus 50.3 months) rapid autopsies were performed which allowed multiregional (n=7, n=4) sampling. The multiregional sequencing in the rapid autopsy case with a prolonged response to VEGF targeted therapy revealed recurrent KDM5C mutations. Conclusions: We present the genomic landscape of metastatic ccRCC after treatment with systemic therapy. We report an increased frequency of KDM5C mutations, previously described to be associated with a favorable response to VEGF-inhibitors.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e001198
Author(s):  
Viral Patel ◽  
Roy Elias ◽  
Joseph Formella ◽  
William Schwartzman ◽  
Alana Christie ◽  
...  

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as nivolumab and ipilimumab have improved outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, but they are also associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs). As observed in melanoma, we hypothesized that patients experiencing an autoimmune reaction directed against the tissue of origin may be more likely to benefit from ICI. Specifically, we asked whether patients with immune-related acute interstitial nephritis (irAIN) exhibited improved outcomes. Using Kidney Cancer Explorer (KCE), a data portal and i2b2-based central database for clinical, pathological and experimental genetic data, we systematically identified all patients with mRCC at UT Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW) from 2014–2018 who received at least one dose of ICI. More recent cases were identified through a provider query. We extracted creatinine (Cr) values at baseline and over the entirety of each patient ICI treatment course using KCE. Patients with ≥ 1.5-fold Cr increase over baseline were investigated. The likelihood of irAIN was determined based on the work-up (biopsy, if available), or by clinical criteria (timing of kidney injury, exclusion of other etiologies, treatment with immunosuppressants and response). We identified 177 mRCC patients who received at least one dose of ICI, 36 of whom had ≥ 1.5-fold increase in Cr over baseline while on treatment. Of those, two had biopsy-proven irAIN and one was clinically diagnosed, resulting in an incidence of 1.7%. One additional biopsy-proven case past 2018 was identified through a provider query, for a total of four patients. Two received combination nivolumab and ipilimumab in the first line, whereas the remaining received nivolumab after first line therapy. irAIN onset ranged from 1.5 to 12 months. All four patients stopped ICI with recovery of renal function, at least partially, three after receiving systemic steroids. Notably, all four patients had a deep response. In conclusion, irAIN is a rare event, but it may portend a higher likelihood of response. One possible explanation is antigenic overlap between normal renal tubular cells and tumor cells.


F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy M. Markman ◽  
Maurie Markman

The therapeutic options available to treat a wide range of malignancies are rapidly increasing. At the same time, the population being treated is aging with more cardiovascular risk factors, comorbid conditions, and associated poor cardiac reserve. Both traditional chemotherapeutic agents (for example, anthracyclines) and newer therapies (for example, targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors) have demonstrated profound cardiovascular toxicities. It is important to understand the mechanisms of these toxicities to establish strategies for the prevention and management of complications—arrhythmias, heart failure, and even death. In the first of this two-part review series, we focus on what is known and hypothesized about the mechanisms of cardiovascular toxicity from anthracyclines, HER2/ErbB2 inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 316-316
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Graham ◽  
Connor Wells ◽  
Shaan Dudani ◽  
Chun Loo Gan ◽  
Frede Donskov ◽  
...  

316 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have demonstrated impressive activity in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and have become standard treatment options in this setting. Data supporting the effectiveness of ICI based therapy in non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) is more limited. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC). Patients with nccRCC were classified into 3 groups based on first-line therapy: ICI based therapy (in monotherapy or in combination), vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy (VEGF-TT) monotherapy, or mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor monotherapy. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were time to treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR). We used Kaplan-Meier method to compare OS and TTF between treatment groups and Cox proportional hazards models to adjust for prognostic covariates. Results: We identified 1181 patients with nccRCC. In first-line, 78.2% received VEGF-TT, 15.8% mTOR inhibitors, and 5.5% ICI based therapy, of which 41.5% in monotherapy, 30.8% doublet-ICIs and 27.7% an ICI combined with VEGF-TT. Median OS in the ICI group was 28.6 months, compared to 19.2 and 12.6 in the VEGF-TT and mTOR groups, respectively. Median TTF was 6.9 months vs. 5.1 and 3.9 and ORR was 25% vs. 17.8% and 5.8% in the ICI, VEGF-TT and mTOR groups, respectively. After adjusting for IMDC risk group, histological subtype, and age, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.58 (95% CI 0.35-0.94, p=0.03) for ICI vs. VEGF-TT and 0.48 (95% CI 0.29-0.80, p=0.005) for ICI vs. mTOR. Conclusions: In advanced nccRCC, first-line ICI based treatment appears to be associated with improved OS compared to VEGF and mTOR targeted therapy. These results need to be confirmed in prospective randomized trials. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document