Background Cabozantinib is an oral small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as MET and AXL; each has been implicated in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) pathobiology or development of resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. This randomized open-label phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib compared to everolimus in RCC patients who progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. Methods The trial randomized 658 patients to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily, or everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary efficacy endpoints were overall survival and objective response rate. Results Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months with cabozantinib and 3.8 months with everolimus. The risk of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib compared to everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75; P < 0.001). Objective response rates were 21% with cabozantinib and 5% with everolimus (P < 0.001). A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was improved with cabozantinib (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P = 0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary. Adverse events (grade 3 or 4, regardless of causality) were reported in 74% of cabozantinib patients and 65% of everolimus patients. Discontinuation of study treatment for adverse events occurred in 9.1% of cabozantinib patients and 10% of everolimus patients. Conclusions Cabozantinib improved progression-free survival compared to everolimus in RCC patients who progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy.

Summary Background The International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model offers prognostic information for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We tested the accuracy of the model in an external population and compared it with other prognostic models. Methods We included patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were treated with first-line VEGF-targeted treatment at 13 international cancer centres and who were registered in the Consortium’s database but had not contributed to the initial development of the Consortium Database model. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We compared the Database Consortium model with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) model, the International Kidney Cancer Working Group (IKCWG) model, the French model, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model by concordance indices and other measures of model fit. Findings Overall, 1028 patients were included in this study, of whom 849 had complete data to assess the Database Consortium model. Median overall survival was 18·8 months (95% 17·6–21·4). The predefined Database Consortium risk factors (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, hypercalcaemia, Karnofsky performance status <80%, and <1 year from diagnosis to treatment) were independent predictors of poor overall survival in the external validation set (hazard ratios ranged between 1·27 and 2·08, concordance index 0·71, 95% CI 0·68–0·73). When patients were segregated into three risk categories, median overall survival was 43·2 months (95% CI 31·4–50·1) in the favourable risk group (no risk factors; 157 patients), 22·5 months (18·7–25·1) in the intermediate risk group (one to two risk factors; 440 patients), and 7·8 months (6·5–9·7) in the poor risk group (three or more risk factors; 252 patients; p<0·0001; concordance index 0·664, 95% CI 0·639–0·689). 672 patients had complete data to test all five models. The concordance index of the CCF model was 0·662 (95% CI 0·636–0·687), of the French model 0·640 (0·614–0·665), of the IKCWG model 0·668 (0·645–0·692), and of the MSKCC model 0·657 (0·632–0·682). The reported versus predicted number of deaths at 2 years was most similar in the Database Consortium model compared with the other models. Interpretation The Database Consortium model is now externally validated and can be applied to stratify patients by risk in clinical trials and to counsel patients about prognosis.

No abstract

We looked at the survival outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients who did or did not have the primary tumor removed. We found that most patients benefited from tumor removal, except for those with four or more IMDC risk factors.

Purpose Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown enhanced antitumor activity compared with monotherapy in tumor types such as melanoma. The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in combination, and nivolumab plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Safety and efficacy results from the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arms of the study are presented. Patients and Methods Patients with mRCC received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3), or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N3I3) every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or toxicity. End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS). Results All patients in the N3I3 arm (n = 6) were censored at the time of analysis as a result of dose-limiting toxicity or other reasons. Forty-seven patients were treated in both the N3I1 and the N1I3 arm, and baseline patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38.3% and 61.7% of the patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ongoing responses in 42.1% and 36.8% of patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. The 2-year OS was 67.3% and 69.6% in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. Conclusion Nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy demonstrated manageable safety, notable antitumor activity, and durable responses with promising OS in patients with mRCC.

No abstract

Patients who have mRCC and sarcomatoid differentiation can demonstrate objective responses and tumor shrinkage to VEGF-targeted therapy. Patients who have clear-cell histology and a lower percentage of sarcomatoid differentiation may have better outcomes with VEGF-targeted therapy.

Background The skeleton and liver are frequently involved sites of metastasis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Objective The purpose of this study was to analyze outcomes based on the presence of bone metastases (BM) and/or liver metastases (LM) in patients with RCC treated with targeted therapy. Design, Setting and Participants We conducted a review from the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) of 2,027 patients with metastatic RCC. Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis We analyzed the impact of site of metastasis on overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment failure (TTF). Statistical analyses were performed using multivariable Cox regression. Results and Limitations Presence of BM was 34% overall and when stratified by IMDC risk groups was 27%, 33%, and 43% in favorable, intermediate, and poor-risk groups, respectively (pitalic>0.001). Presence of LM was 19% overall and higher in the poor-risk patients (23%) compared to the favorable or intermediate-risk groups (17%) (p=0.003). When patients were classified into four groups based on the presence of BM and/or LM the hazard ratio (HR), adjusted for IMDC risk factors, was 1.4 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.22–1.62) for BM, 1.42 (95% CI 1.17–1.73) for LM, and 1.82 (95% CI 1.47–2.26) for both BM and LM compared to other metastatic sites (pbold>0.0001). The prediction model performance for OS was significantly improved when BM and LM were added to the IMDC prognostic model (likelihood ratio test p<0.0001). Data in this analysis was collected retrospectively. Conclusions The presence of BM and LM in patients treated with targeted agents has a negative impact on survival. Patients with BM and/or LM may benefit from earlier inclusion on clinical trials of novel agents or combination-based therapies.