Lam, Elaine T.

4516 Background: Ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) is a standard of care first-line treatment (tx) for patients (pts) with mccRCC; however, ideal timing of subsequent immunotherapy txs are not well defined. We performed an analysis of patients initially treated with ipi/nivo and subsequent cohort assignments on PDIGREE (A031704). Methods: The PDIGREE trial treated pts with IMDC intermediate/poor risk mccRCC with first-line ipi/nivo (Step 1) at NCTN sites (categorized as academic (A), academic regional (R), and community (C)). Subsequent management was based on iRECIST responses at 12 weeks: pts with complete response (CR) received 1-year nivo maintenance; pts with progressive disease (PD) received cabozantinib (cabo) monotherapy, pts with non-CR/non-PD were randomized to nivo with or without cabo (for primary endpoint of overall survival [OS], target sample size was 1175). Enrollment was held when the randomized sample target was reached. Pts with unresolved toxicity at week 22 were managed off protocol. Step 1 pt demographics, assignments into Step 2, and adverse event (AE) data are presented. Descriptive statistics were used, and cohorts were compared using a chi-square test. These data were released with DSMB approval and do not inform the primary OS endpoint (1EP). Results: From May 2019 to May 2024, 1111 pts were enrolled and treated with ipi/nivo. Pt characteristics included median age 64.0 years (range 29.0-86.0); 819 (73.7%) males; White (85.1%), Hispanic (10.4%), Black (4.2%), and American Indian/Native Hawaiian (1.3%); 849 (76.8%) intermediate risk/257 (23.2%) poor risk; 458 (41.2%) at Academic, 113 (10.2%) at Regional, and 540 (48.6%) at Community centers; and 603 (54.3%) with de novo metastases. 364 pts (33%) stopped tx in Step 1: 160 (44%) for AEs, 46 (13%) for PD/clinical PD/suspected PD, 42 (12%) withdrawals, 39 (11%) alternative txs, 37 (10%) deaths on the study, 12 (3%) other complicating disease, 8 (2%) MD decision and 19 (5%) other reasons. Of the 37 deaths, 15 (1.4%) grade 5 SAEs were reported, 6 of which were due to PD. Of 747 (67%) pts registered to Step 2 at 3 months, 9 (1.2%) achieved CR, and 141 (18.9%) pts were assigned to the PD cohort. 597 pts (80%) were randomized for the 1EP, notable with fewer pts with poor risk [(21 vs 27%, p = 0.01] and bone metastases [24.5% vs 34.2%, p = 0.0007] compared to Step 1 pts who discontinued tx. Gr 3/4 tx-related AEs in 314/1093 (29%) evaluable pts included diarrhea/colitis (8%), transaminase elevation (3%), rash (2%), adrenal insufficiency (2%), fatigue (2%), and hypophysitis (1%). Conclusions: The PDIGREE trial enrolled a representative US-based population with mccRCC. Step 1 pt characteristics and associated outcomes with induction ipi/nivo reveal new insights into the tolerability and tx response of 1L ipi/nivo. Clinical trial information: NCT03793166 .

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

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.

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. Experimental Design: Adult patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear-cell component, ≥1 measurable lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, fresh or archival tumor specimen, and adequate renal, cardiac, and hepatic function were included. Retrospective analyses of the association between baseline NLR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms were performed using the first interim analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006). Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were conducted. Translational data were assessed to elucidate the underlying biology associated with differences in NLR. Results: Patients with below-median NLR had longer observed PFS with avelumab plus axitinib [stratified HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.634–1.153] or sunitinib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.415–0.745). In the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms, respectively, median PFS was 13.8 and 11.2 months in patients with below-median NLR, and 13.3 and 5.6 months in patients with median-or-higher NLR. Below-median NLR was also associated with longer observed OS in the avelumab plus axitinib (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.300–0.871) and sunitinib arms (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.174–0.511). Tumor analyses showed an association between NLR and key biological characteristics, suggesting a role of NLR in underlying mechanisms influencing clinical outcome. Conclusions: Current data support NLR as a prognostic biomarker in patients with advanced RCC receiving avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the guidelines, including changes to certain systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC. They also discuss the addition of a new section to the guidelines that identifies and describes the most common hereditary RCC syndromes and provides recommendations for genetic testing, surveillance, and/or treatment options for patients who are suspected or confirmed to have one of these syndromes.

5061 Background: The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56, 0.84; P < 0.001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 51.4% vs 25.7%) with avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib (Motzer RJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1103-15). NLR has emerged as a potential prognostic biomarker in aRCC; elevated NLR is associated with poorer prognosis. Here, we describe the association of NLR with the efficacy of avelumab + axitinib from JAVELIN Renal 101. Methods: We examined baseline NLR and its association with efficacy outcomes. PFS, best overall response (per blinded independent central review using RECIST 1.1), and overall survival (OS) data from the avelumab + axitinib arm from the first interim analysis of JAVELIN Renal 101 were analyzed (data cutoff, June 20, 2018). Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were also conducted. Results: In the avelumab + axitinib arm, patients with < median NLR (N = 217) had longer observed PFS (stratified HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.634, 1.153) and longer observed OS (stratified HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.300, 0.871) than patients with ≥ median NLR (N = 217). The ORR was 57.1% in patients with < median NLR vs 47.5% in patients with ≥ median NLR, with complete response in 5.5% vs 1.4%. Multivariate analysis showed that low NLR was associated with longer PFS and OS by treating baseline NLR as either a continuous variable or a binary variable (dichotomized by median). Conclusions: Low NLR was associated with better observed treatment outcomes in patients with aRCC who received avelumab + axitinib. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006 .

Objective To evaluate patient‐reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression‐free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients and methods Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks ( n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks ( n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6‐week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2‐point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. Results Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue‐related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22–0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12–0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22–0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Conclusion PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

4515 Background: The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved PFS with atezo + bev vs sun in patients (pts) whose tumors were PD-L1+ and corroborated the activity of atezo monotherapy in previously untreated mRCC. This study offers an opportunity to evaluate PROs with immunotherapy and VEGF-directed therapy alone and in combination. Methods: Pts randomized to atezo 1200 mg IV q3w alone or with bev 15 mg/kg IV q3w, or sun 50 mg po qd for 4 wk on/2 wk off completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) q3w of each 6-wk cycle until progression (RECIST 1.1). Time to deterioration (TTD; first ≥ 2-point score increase over baseline [BL]) and change from BL (effect size [ES] ≥ 0.2 suggests a clinically important difference vs sun) in MDASI symptom severity and interference and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores are reported for all-comers. Results: Completion rates were > 90% at BL and ≥ 80% at most visits across arms. BL PRO scores indicating mild symptoms and interference were similar across arms. Delayed TTD of symptom severity and interference with daily life was seen with atezo vs sun and atezo + bev vs sun and was longest with atezo alone (Table). Pts reported milder symptoms and less interference during the first 6 cycles with atezo vs sun: ES mean (range) was 0.36 (0.07-0.68) for core symptom severity and 0.36 (0.04-0.83) for symptom interference. The 5 worst pt-reported symptoms during tx (dry mouth, fatigue, rash, drowsiness, lack of appetite) were all in the sun arm; all 16 symptoms measured were milder with atezo vs sun. Conclusions: PROs suggest that atezo alone or with bev maintained daily function with minimal symptom interference vs sun. Clinical activity, safety and PRO data for atezo support its investigation in adjuvant tx of high-risk RCC pts (IMmotion010; NCT03024996). Clinical trial information: NCT01984242. [Table: see text]