Jonasch, Eric W.

498 Background: Radiotherapy-based metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) has emerged as a viable treatment paradigm for oligometastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). However, the optimal integration of MDT with frontline immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is unclear, especially in light of the M1 NED subgroup analysis of KEYNOTE-564 suggestive of a larger benefit from adjuvant pembrolizumab. Here, we sought to compare the effects of MDT with or without pembrolizumab on clinical and translational outcomes among patients with oligometastatic ccRCC enrolled on two prospective phase II trials. Methods: We undertook an exploratory cohort study of two prospective, single-arm, investigator-initiated phase II trials. The RAPPORT trial (NCT02855203) assigned 30 patients to radiotherapy-based MDT followed by pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for eight cycles (MDT+ICI cohort). The MD Anderson trial (NCT03575611) assigned 121 patients to serial MDT (which was almost exclusively radiotherapy-based) without systemic therapy (MDT cohort). For both trials, eligibility criteria consisted of 1 to 5 ccRCC metastatic lesions amenable to MDT. For the present analysis, the primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), prospectively defined by RECIST v1.1 and analyzed using Cox regression. Peripheral blood flow cytometry obtained at baseline, end of MDT in both cohorts (after 1 cycle of ICI in the MDT+ICI cohort), and after completion of all treatment in both cohorts (3 months in the MDT alone cohort and 12 months in the MDT+ICI cohort) was compared using adjusted linear mixed effect models. Results: A total of 150 patients were included for analysis (MDT+ICI: 30; MDT: 120). Median follow-up time was 34 months (MDT+ICI: 28; MDT: 36). At enrollment, the MDT+ICI cohort had a larger number of metastases (median 3 vs 1). Adjusted for prognostic factors, median PFS was 28 months after MDT+ICI and 17 months after MDT (HR, 0.57; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.998; P = 0.049). Induction of activated systemic CD8 + T cells (ICOS + ) was observed in both cohorts following MDT; however, this increase was greater in the MDT+ICI cohort. Moreover, there was evidence of decreased systemic CD8 + T cell immunosuppression (CD73 + ) following treatment cessation in the MDT+ICI group. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest prospective analysis of MDT for ccRCC in the ICI era. The addition of maintenance ICI to MDT may improve clinical outcomes in patients with oligometastatic ccRCC. Greater immunomodulatory signals were observed with MDT+ICI, providing a mechanistic link to the clinical benefits. The ASTROs trial (NCT06004336) randomizing patients with oligometastatic ccRCC to MDT with or without pembrolizumab has been initiated to test the hypotheses generated by the present study. Clinical trial information: NCT02855203 and NCT03575611 .

4597 Background: NCCRCC are a diverse group of rare diseases with limited data to guide treatment. CABO is highly effective in clear cell RCC, but it is unknown whether it is superior to SUN, the historic standard of care for metastatic NCCRCC. Methods: CABOSUN II (NCT03541902) was a randomized phase II study at 3 centers for patients (pts) with metastatic NCCRCC. Sixty pts were planned to detect CABO as better than SUN with a 1-sided test. Pts were randomized 1:1 to CABO 60mg daily or SUN 50mg daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). SUN dose modification to 2 weeks on, 1 week off was allowed for toxicity. Stratification was by papillary RCC (PRCC) vs. non-PRCC (NPRCC), good/intermediate vs. poor risk disease by IMDC criteria, and prior TKI use. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1 compared between the 2 arms using the log-rank test. Secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and adverse event (AE) rates (2-sided tests). Results: 32 pts were randomized to CABO (N=15) or SUN (N=17) between 9/2018 and 6/2021. The trial stopped early due to a change in standard therapy for PRCC not based on these pts’ outcomes. Age range was 22-88 years with medians 57 and 61 for CABO and SUN. Pts were primarily white (84%) and male (72%), with good/intermediate risk (88%), and these were balanced between arms. More pts on the CABO arm had bone metastases (62% vs. 24%). NPRCC were chromophobe (N=6; 5 randomized to SUN), unclassified (N=5), and MiT family translocation (N=3; all randomized to CABO). With median follow-up of 33.3 months and 20 PFS events, median PFS for CABO vs. SUN was 8.2 vs. 13.8 months (1-sided p=0.96). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR or OS between the arms. AEs were in line with previous studies. Conclusions: CABO was not superior to SUN for metastatic NCCRCC in this study. Both arms had high rates of stable disease or better. Despite stratification by PRCC or NPRCC, there were major differences in NPRCC subtypes between the arms that may have impacted the results. More pts with chromophobe histology, an often indolent subtype, received SUN while all pts with MiT family translocation, a relatively aggressive subtype, received CABO. Permitted SUN dose modifications may have also influenced outcomes. While the PAPMET study showed CABO to be superior to SUN for PRCC, optimal treatments for rare, NPRCC remain a pressing need. Clinical trial information: NCT03541902 . [Table: see text]

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.

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.

Abstract Purpose: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is frequently associated with inactivation of the von Hippel–Lindau tumor suppressor, resulting in activation of HIF-1α and HIF-2α. The current paradigm, established using mechanistic cell-based studies, supports a tumor promoting role for HIF-2α, and a tumor suppressor role for HIF-1α. However, few studies have comprehensively examined the clinical relevance of this paradigm. Furthermore, the hypoxia-associated factor (HAF), which regulates the HIFs, has not been comprehensively evaluated in ccRCC. Experimental Design: To assess the involvement of HAF/HIFs in ccRCC, we analyzed their relationship to tumor grade/stage/outcome using tissue from 380 patients, and validated these associations using tissue from 72 additional patients and a further 57 patients treated with antiangiogenic therapy for associations with response. Further characterization was performed using single-cell mRNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), RNA-in situ hybridization (RNA-ISH), and IHC. Results: HIF-1α was primarily expressed in tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), whereas HIF-2α and HAF were expressed primarily in tumor cells. TAM-associated HIF-1α was significantly associated with high tumor grade and increased metastasis and was independently associated with decreased overall survival. Furthermore, elevated TAM HIF-1α was significantly associated with resistance to antiangiogenic therapy. In contrast, high HAF or HIF-2α were associated with low grade, decreased metastasis, and increased overall survival. scRNA-seq, RNA-ISH, and Western blotting confirmed the expression of HIF-1α in M2-polarized CD163-expressing TAMs. Conclusions: These findings highlight a potential role of TAM HIF-1α in ccRCC progression and support the reevaluation of HIF-1α as a therapeutic target and marker of disease progression.

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.

386 Background: Angiogenesis plays a role in tumor growth and is partly mediated by factors in both the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathways. Brivanib inhibits both VEGF receptor 2 and FGF receptors (FGFR)-1/2. Methods: Nephrectomy material from 40 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) receiving sorafenib ± interferon was assessed by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. The Ariol imaging platform was used to stratify the specimens based on intensity of staining for FGF biomarkers: FGFR-1 and fibroblast growth factor receptor substrate 2 (pFRS2). The relationship between fibroblast growth factor pathway marker levels and progression-free survival (PFS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression methods. To assess the efficacy of dual targeting of VEGF and FGF receptor signaling by brivanib, we treated a xenograft RCC mouse model with sunitinib, brivanib, or sunitinib followed by brivanib. Results: Our analysis indicated that more intense FGFR-1 staining was associated with shorter PFS (p = 0.0452), and that pFRS2 staining were not significantly associated with PFS (p = 0.2610). FGF pathway activation was associated with decreased PFS in patients with metastatic RCC treated with sorafenib. Xenograft mice were treated with 20 mg/kg sunitinib and after an initial stabilization phase, resistance developed by day 20. A switch to 30 mg/kg brivanib prolonged the stabilization phase after progression on sunitinib (p = 0.0033). Conclusions: The PFS of patients treated with sorafenib is associated with FGF pathway activation. In a xenograft RCC mouse model, brivanib overcame the tumor escape after initial treatment with sunitinib. Switching from sunitinib to brivanib at the time of tumor escape prolonged the stabilization phase and overcame a sunitinib-induced resistance phenotype. The results suggest that FGF pathway activation mediates both innate and acquired tumor resistance to VEGF receptor inhibition. The efficacy of dual inhibition of FGF and VEGF in the subset of patients with increased FGF activation prior to treatment requires further study.