Choueiri, Toni K

PURPOSE Bone metastases (BM) occur in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and are associated with poor survival and symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Radium-223, an alpha-emitting bone-seeking radioisotope, and cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, have demonstrated activity in BM. RADICAL (Alliance A031801; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04071223 ) evaluated cabozantinib ± radium-223 in mRCC with BM. METHODS This phase II trial enrolled patients with mRCC of any histology with ≥1 BM. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to cabozantinib ± radium-223, stratified by osteoclast-targeted therapy (OTT), prior therapy, opioid use, and International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk. The primary end point was SSE-free survival (SSE-FS). Secondary end points included safety, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). A target of 124 evaluable patients was planned, with a prespecified interim futility analysis at 50% of expected SSE-FS events; the trial would stop if the stratified hazard ratio (sHR) > 1.0. RESULTS The prespecified interim futility analysis was conducted after 90 patients were enrolled and crossed the futility boundary, leading to closure at 98 patients. The final analysis included all 98 patients. Median age was 63 years, 82.7% had clear cell histology, and 79.6% were using an OTT. IMDC risk was favorable (18.4%), intermediate (67.3%), and poor (14.3%). Median follow-up was 13.1 months. Median SSE-FS for cabozantinib with radium-223 versus cabozantinib was 16.7 versus 17.6 months (sHR, 1.46 [90% CI, 0.86 to 2.51]). Median OS was 28.3 versus 19.7 months (sHR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.70 to 2.79]). ORR was 19.4% versus 25.0% ( P = .78). Grade ≥3 adverse events were similar across arms (69.6% v 75.5%). CONCLUSION Radium-223 did not improve SSE-FS when added to cabozantinib. The combination demonstrated a manageable safety profile.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations represent the standard of care for advanced renal cell carcinoma. The OMNIVORE trial investigated a response-adaptive strategy, including treatment discontinuation in early nivolumab responders (Arm A) and salvage ipilimumab addition in non-responders (Arm B). Here we report outcomes with extended follow-up. Methods OMNIVORE was a phase II response-adaptive trial in which patients received induction nivolumab monotherapy. Patients achieving a confirmed complete or partial response discontinued nivolumab and entered observation (Arm A), while patients with stable disease or progressive disease received two doses of ipilimumab added to ongoing nivolumab (Arm B). This analysis characterizes long-term overall survival across the full study cohort and durability of response among patients who discontinued nivolumab following an early objective response. Results Of 83 patients who initiated treatment, 12 (14%) were allocated to Arm A and 57 (69%) to Arm B, with a median follow-up among living patients of 59.4 months (range 29.1–85.4 months) in Arm A and 31.4 months (range 4.6–62.6 months) in Arm B. The 3-year overall survival rate from nivolumab initiation was 64% (95% CI 51% to 74%) in the overall cohort, 83% (95% CI 48% to 96%) in Arm A, and 63% (95% CI 47% to 76%) in Arm B. Of the 12 Arm A patients, 6 (50%) remained off nivolumab at 1 year following treatment discontinuation, of whom 5 maintained responses beyond 43 months off therapy, with all remaining alive at last known follow-up, with overall survival ranging from 48.8 to 85.4 months from nivolumab initiation. Of the six patients who resumed treatment, only one achieved a durable complete response remaining on treatment at 83.2 months from nivolumab initiation. All 57 Arm B patients discontinued treatment with a median treatment duration of 3.7 months (range 1–24.8 months) and a median progression-free survival from nivolumab plus ipilimumab initiation of 4.6 months (95% CI 2.7 to 6.5 months). Conclusions With extended follow-up, a meaningful subset of patients achieving an early objective response to nivolumab maintained prolonged treatment-free survival following a short course of treatment. Salvage ipilimumab in nivolumab non-responders demonstrated limited benefit, reinforcing that upfront concurrent dual checkpoint blockade remains the preferred approach. Trial registration number NCT03203473 .

PURPOSE Despite international medical graduates (IMGs) accounting for up to one third of all practicing oncologists in the United States, and nearly half of fellowship trainees, little is known about their contributions to presentations at international oncology meetings. Therefore, we investigated the representation of IMGs in invited faculty roles at the ASCO Annual Meeting as a representative example. METHODS Presentation data from ASCO 2022 and 2023 Annual Meetings were obtained from program guides. We collected presentation-level and speaker-level variables of invited faculty roles and original research. Speakers were categorized as American medical graduate (AMG), IMG, non–US-based, or non-MD (Doctor of Medicine). Univariable and multivariable analyses assessed factors influencing selection for invited faculty roles. RESULTS A total of 2,590 presentations by 2,109 unique speakers were reviewed, including primary research presenters and invited faculty. Among the 1,352 presentations by AMGs, 30% were primary research and 70% were invited faculty roles. For the 374 presentations by IMGs, 41% were primary research and 59% were invited faculty roles. Notably, first-author IMGs were significantly less likely to receive invited faculty roles relative to their primary research output compared with first-author AMGs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.90]; P = .006), even when accounting for academic rank, presumed sex, and year. CONCLUSION Relative to IMGs' original research output, IMGs appear to receive fewer invitations for ASCO Annual Meeting invited faculty roles compared with AMGs. Our findings suggest potential underrepresentation and under-recognition of IMGs in these roles, despite their contributions to the oncology workforce in the United States.

PURPOSE International medical graduates (IMGs) are an essential component of the oncology workforce in the United States, comprising a third of all practicing oncologists and almost half of hematology/oncology fellows. In this article, we discuss the contributions of IMGs in the US oncology workforce, review unique challenges faced by IMGs, and propose potential solutions to overcome these challenges. METHODS ASCO's IMG Community of Practice was established with the mission to connect, mentor, guide, raise awareness, and overcome the challenges unique to IMGs interested in pursuing medical oncology in the United States. The content of this article is based on discussions at the IMG Community of Practice meetings at ASCO's 2023 and 2024 Annual Meetings. RESULTS IMGs bring an inherent diversity of thought and experience to the oncology workforce. They provide high-quality, culture- and language-concordant care to a diverse population of patients with cancer. However, IMGs in oncology face significant hardships throughout their careers, including visa-related restrictions, psychosocial and cultural struggles, as well as differential treatment while applying for residency and fellowship training, and early career positions. Greater awareness of these challenges among the members of the hematology/oncology community, along with institutional and individual efforts to support IMGs, is warranted. CONCLUSION We encourage oncology professionals and institutions to join our efforts in recognizing the unique paths of IMGs and providing support and advocacy to maximize the potential of IMGs in the US oncology workforce.

Background Patients with paraneoplastic syndromes (PNS) are excluded from clinical trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to safety concerns. Moreover, real-world data on efficacy and safety is scarce. Methods In this retrospective study, data were collected on patients with PNS and solid tumors receiving ICI between 2015 and 2022 at nine institutions. Patients were classified into: Cohort 1 (pre-existing PNS before ICI initiation), cohort 2 (PNS during ICI treatment), and cohort 3 (PNS after ICI discontinuation). Patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (mNSCLC) from cohort 1 were matched to patients who were PNS-free at each institution up to a 1:3 ratio for age, sex, type of ICI, use of concurrent chemotherapy, and number of lines of systemic therapy prior to ICI initiation. Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess overall survival (OS) and time-to-next treatment (TTNT). Results Among 109 patients with PNS treated with ICIs, median age at ICI initiation was 67 years (IQR: 58–74). The most represented cancer type was NSCLC (n=39, 36%). In cohort 1 (n=55), PNS exacerbations occurred in 16 (29%) patients with median time to exacerbation after ICI of 1.1 months (IQR: 0.7–3.3). Exacerbation or de novo PNS prompted temporary/permanent interruption of ICIs in 14 (13%) patients. For cohort 2 (n=16), median time between ICI initiation and de novo PNS was 1.2 months (IQR: 0.4–3.5). Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) occurred in 43 (39%) patients. Grade ≥3 trAEs occurred in 18 (17%) patients. PNS-directed immunosuppressive therapy was required in 55 (50%) patients. We matched 18 patients with mNSCLC and PNS (cohort 1) to 40 without PNS, treated with ICIs. There was no significant difference in OS or TTNT between patients with mNSCLC with and without PNS, although a trend was seen towards worse outcomes in patients with PNS. TrAEs occurred in 6/18 (33%) and 14/40 (35%), respectively. Grade ≥3 trAEs occurred in 4 (22%) patients with PNS and 7 (18%) patients without PNS. Conclusions Exacerbations of pre-existing PNS occurred in 29% of patients treated with ICIs and both exacerbations and de novo PNS occur early in the ICI course. TrAE from ICIs were similar between patients with and without PNS. Our data suggest that pre-existing PNS should not preclude consideration of ICI therapy although patients may not derive the same clinical benefit compared with patients without PNS.

Abstract Background Treatment options for penile squamous cell carcinoma are limited. We sought to investigate clinical outcomes and safety profiles of patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Methods This retrospective study included patients with locally advanced or metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors between 2015 and 2022 across 24 centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Objective response rates were determined per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 criteria. Treatment-related adverse events were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Two-sided statistical tests were used for comparisons. Results Among 92 patients, 8 (8.7%) were Asian, 6 (6.5%) were Black, and 24 (29%) were Hispanic and/or Latinx. Median (interquartile range) age was 62 (53-70) years. In all, 83 (90%) had metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma, and 74 (80%) had received at least second-line treatment. Most patients received pembrolizumab monotherapy (n = 26 [28%]), combination nivolumab-ipilimumab with or without multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n = 23 [25%]), or nivolumab (n = 16 [17%]) or cemiplimab (n = 15 [16%]) monotherapies. Median overall and progression-free survival were 9.8 months (95% confidence interval = 7.7 to 12.8 months) and 3.2 months (95% confidence interval = 2.5 to 4.2 months), respectively. The objective response rate was 13% (n = 11/85) in the overall cohort and 35% (n = 7/20) in patients with lymph node–only metastases. Visceral metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or higher, and a higher neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio were associated with worse overall survival. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 27 (29%) patients, and 9.8% (n = 9) of the events were grade 3 or higher. Conclusions Immune checkpoint inhibitors are active in a subset of patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. Future translational studies are warranted to identify patients more likely to derive clinical benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors.

PURPOSE Compared with people living without HIV (PWOH), people living with HIV (PWH) and cancer have traditionally been excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Furthermore, there is a paucity of real-world data on the use of ICIs in PWH and cancer. METHODS This retrospective study included PWH treated with anti–PD-1- or anti–PD-L1-based therapies for advanced cancers. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rates (ORRs) were measured per RECIST 1.1 or other tumor-specific criteria, whenever feasible. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to compare OS and PFS between matched PWH and PWOH with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). RESULTS Among 390 PWH, median age was 58 years, 85% (n = 331) were males, 36% (n = 138) were Black; 70% (n = 274) received anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 monotherapy. Most common cancers were NSCLC (28%, n = 111), hepatocellular carcinoma ([HCC]; 11%, n = 44), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; 10%, n = 39). Seventy percent (152/216) had CD4+ T cell counts ≥200 cells/µL, and 94% (179/190) had HIV viral load <400 copies/mL. Twenty percent (79/390) had any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 7.7% (30/390) had grade ≥3 irAEs. ORRs were 69% (nonmelanoma skin cancer), 31% (NSCLC), 16% (HCC), and 11% (HNSCC). In the matched mNSCLC cohort (61 PWH v 110 PWOH), 20% (12/61) PWH and 22% (24/110) PWOH had irAEs. Adjusted 42-month RMST difference was –0.06 months (95% CI, –5.49 to 5.37; P = .98) for PFS and 2.23 months (95% CI, –4.02 to 8.48; P = .48) for OS. CONCLUSION Among PWH, ICIs demonstrated differential activity across cancer types with no excess toxicity. Safety and activity of ICIs were similar between matched cohorts of PWH and PWOH with mNSCLC.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract Brain metastases are a challenging manifestation of renal cell carcinoma. We have a limited understanding of brain metastasis tumor and immune biology, drivers of resistance to systemic treatment, and their overall poor prognosis. Current data support a multimodal treatment strategy with radiation treatment and/or surgery. Nonetheless, the optimal approach for the management of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma remains unclear. To improve patient care, the authors sought to standardize practical management strategies. They performed an unstructured literature review and elaborated on the current management strategies through an international group of experts from different disciplines assembled via the network of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition. Experts from different disciplines were administered a survey to answer questions related to current challenges and unmet patient needs. On the basis of the integrated approach of literature review and survey study results, the authors built algorithms for the management of single and multiple brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The literature review, consensus statements, and algorithms presented in this report can serve as a framework guiding treatment decisions for patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:454‐489.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as “Preferred,” “Other Recommended Regimens,” or “Useful in Certain Circumstances.” This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.