BackgroundNivolumab is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) refractory to prior antiangiogenic therapy. The clinical activity of nivolumab in patients with non-clear cell RCC subtypes remains unknown as these patients were excluded from the original nivolumab trials.MethodsPatients from 6 centers in the United States who received at least one dose of nivolumab for non-clear cell mRCC between 12/2015 and 06/2017 were identified. A retrospective analysis including patient characteristics, objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was undertaken.ResultsForty-one patients were identified. Median age was 58 years (33–82), 71% were male, and majority had ECOG PS 0 (40%) or 1 (47%). Histology included 16 papillary, 14 unclassified, 5 chromophobe, 4 collecting duct, 1 Xp11 translocation and 1 MTSCC (mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma). Among 35 patients who were evaluable for best response, 7 (20%) had PR and 10 (29%) had SD. Responses were observed in unclassified, papillary and collecting duct subtypes. In the entire cohort, median follow-up was 8.5 months and median treatment duration was 3.0 months. Median PFS was 3.5 months and median OS was not reached. Among responders, median time to best response was 5.1 months, and median duration of response was not reached as only 2 out of 7 responders had disease progression during follow-up. TRAEs of any grade were noted in 37% and most commonly included fatigue (12%), fever (10%) and rash (10%). Nivolumab treatments were postponed in 34% and discontinued in 15% of patients due to intolerance. No treatment-related deaths were observed.ConclusionsNivolumab monotherapy demonstrated objective responses and was well tolerated in a heterogeneous population of patients with non-clear cell mRCC. In the absence of other data in this treatment setting, this study lends support to the use of nivolumab for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

The need to provide invasive mechanical ventilatory support to patients with myocardial infarction and acute left heart failure is common. Despite the large number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation in this setting, there are remarkably few data addressing the ideal mode of respiratory support in such patients. Although there is near universal acceptance regarding the use of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in patients with acute pulmonary oedema, there is more concern with invasive positive pressure ventilation owing to its more significant haemodynamic impact. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is almost universally applied in mechanically ventilated patients due to benefits in gas exchange, recruitment of alveolar units, counterbalance of hydrostatic forces leading to pulmonary oedema and maintenance of airway patency. The limited available clinical data suggest that a moderate level of PEEP is safe to use in severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and cardiogenic shock, and may provide haemodynamic benefits as well in LV failure which exhibits afterload-sensitive physiology.

Renal cell carcinomas vary considerably in their tumor biology and disease course, which is reflected in the range of treatment paradigms in localized and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Active surveillance remains an important component of all renal cell carcinoma management. In mRCC, the rapid evolution from cytokine-based therapy to targeted therapy to immunotherapy with checkpoint blockade has revolutionized the field and drastically altered treatment outcomes. More recently, combination therapies have become a standard of care for most patients with mRCC. In this review, we highlight recent critical data that led to changes in treatment paradigms and provide a practical framework for the management of patients with mRCC.

Bladder cancer is the sixth most common cancer in the US and most tumors have urothelial (transitional cell) histology. Platinum-based chemotherapy has long been the standard of care in advanced disease, but long-term outcomes have largely remained poor. Since the peak incidence of bladder cancer is in the eighth decade of life and beyond, medical comorbidities may often limit the use of chemotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors with their favorable toxicity profiles and notable antitumor activity have ushered in a new era in the treatment of advanced urothelial cancer (UC) with five agents targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway being recently approved by the US Food and Drug administration. A plethora of clinical trials are ongoing in diverse disease settings, employing agents targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and related immune checkpoint pathways. While reactivating anti-tumor immunity, these agents may lead to a unique constellation of immune-related adverse events, which may warrant discontinuation of therapy and potential use of immunosuppression. Novel combinations with various treatment modalities and optimal sequencing of active therapies are being investigated in prospective clinical trials and retrospective registries. At the era of precision molecular medicine, and since patients do not respond uniformly to these agents, there is a growing need for identification and validation of biomarkers that can accurately predict treatment response and assist in patient selection. This review discusses current updates and future directions of immunotherapy in advanced UC.

No abstract

BackgroundNivolumab is approved for the treatment of refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Patterns and predictors of progressive disease (PD) on nivolumab, and outcomes in such patients are lacking.MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients (pts) with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) who received nivolumab at Cleveland Clinic (2015–2017) was performed. PD was defined per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 or clinical progression as per treating physician. Univariate analyses (UVA) and multivariate analyses (MVA) were used to identify clinical and laboratory markers as potential predictors of progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsNinety patients with mean age of 65, 74% men, and 83% good or intermediate International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group were included. Median number of prior systemic treatments was 2 (range, 1–6). Median overall survival (OS) and PFS were 15.8 and 4.4 months, respectively. Fifty-seven patients (63%) had PD and 44% of patients with radiographic PD had new organ sites of metastases with brain (8/23, 35%) being the most common. Twelve patients received treatment beyond progression (TBP), and among 6 patients with available data, 3 (50%) had any tumor shrinkage (2 pts. with 17% shrinkage, one pt. with 29% shrinkage). Of 57 patients with PD, 28 patients (49%) were able to initiate subsequent treatment, mainly with axitinib and cabozantinib, while 40% of patients were transitioned to hospice after PD. In MVA, a higher baseline Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05–3.29; p = 0.033) was associated with an increased risk of progression, whereas higher (> 0.1 k/uL) baseline eosinophil count was associated with a lower risk of progression (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30–0.98; p = 0.042).ConclusionBrain was the most common site of PD in patients treated with nivolumab, and only half of patients progressing on nivolumab were able to initiate subsequent treatment. The risk of PD increased with a higher baseline NLR and reduced with a higher baseline eosinophil count.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-018-0425-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

PURPOSE Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The safety and activity of the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients who have received prior ICI targeting the programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway remains unknown. We evaluated ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with metastatic RCC after prior treatment with anti–PD-1 pathway–targeted therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic RCC who received prior anti–PD-1 pathway-targeted therapy and subsequently received ipilimumab and nivolumab were reviewed. Objective response rate and progression-free survival per investigator assessment were recorded. Toxicity of ipilimumab and nivolumab was also assessed. RESULTS Forty-five patients with metastatic RCC were included. All patients (100%) received prior ICIs targeting the PD-1 pathway. The median age was 62 years (range, 21-82 years). At a median follow-up of 12 months, the objective response rate to ipilimumab and nivolumab was 20%. The median progression-free survival while on ipilimumab and nivolumab was 4 months (range, 0.8-19 months). Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade with ipilimumab and nivolumab were recorded in 29 (64%) of the 45 patients; grade 3 irAEs were recorded in 6 (13%) of the 45 patients. CONCLUSION Ipilimumab and nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with acceptable toxicity in patients with metastatic RCC who had prior treatment with checkpoint inhibition.