Treatment-free survival and partitioned survival analysis of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib: 5-year update of CheckMate 214.

Immunotherapy can be associated with prolonged disease control even after cessation of treatment without the need for further cancer-directed therapy. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) can also persist after discontinuation of therapy. Treatment-free survival (TFS) with and without toxicity as a component of a partitioned survival model can characterize patient survival time, which is not captured by standard outcome measures. Data from 1096 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the CheckMate 214 trial were analyzed. TFS was defined as the area between two Kaplan-Meier curves for time from randomization to protocol therapy discontinuation and time from randomization to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated as the difference in 60-month restricted mean times with confidence intervals (CIs) obtained using bootstrap sampling. Time on protocol therapy and TFS were further characterized as time with and without grade 2+ and 3+TRAEs. Survival functions were estimated in subgroups including International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. At 5 years from randomization, 48% of patients treated with NIVO+IPI and 37% of patients treated with SUN were alive. In the intent-to-treat population, 18% of the NIVO+IPI-treated and 5% of SUN-treated patients are surviving treatment-free. For favorable-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 14.4 months for NIVO+IPI versus 5.5 months for SUN (difference 8.9 months (95% CI 4.9 to 12.8)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 5.0 and 2.1 months, respectively, and with grade 3+TRAEs was 1.2 and 0.3 months, respectively. For intermediate/poor-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 10.1 months for NIVO+IPI versus 4.1 months for SUN (difference 6.1 months (95% CI 4.2 to 7.9)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 4.0 versus 2.0 months, respectively, and 0.6 versus 0.3 months with grade 3+TRAEs. Although overall survival was similar, favorable-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI spent more time surviving treatment-free with and without toxicity versus SUN after 60 months of follow-up. Intermediate/poor-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI had longer survival and longer TFS without toxicity versus SUN. NCT02231749.

Mantia CM ，Jegede OA ，Plimack ER ，Powles T ，Motzer RJ ，Tannir NM ，Lee CH ，Tomita Y ，Voss MH ，Choueiri TK ，Rini BI ，Hammers HJ ，Escudier B ，Albigès L ，Rosenblatt L ，Atkins MB ，Regan MM ，McDermott DF ... -  《Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer》

First-line therapy for adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL). To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable. All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm. We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.

Aldin A ，Besiroglu B ，Adams A ，Monsef I ，Piechotta V ，Tomlinson E ，Hornbach C ，Dressen N ，Goldkuhle M ，Maisch P ，Dahm P ，Heidenreich A ，Skoetz N ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: results from the open-label, randomised, phase II FRACTION-RCC trial.

The Fast Real-time Assessment of Combination Therapies in Immuno-ONcology study in patients with aRCC (FRACTION-RCC) was designed to assess new immuno-oncology (IO) combinations in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We present results in IO-naive patients treated with nivolumab (NIVO) + relatlimab (RELA) or NIVO + ipilimumab (IPI) in track 1. The open-label, randomised, phase II FRACTION-RCC trial enrolled patients with aRCC from 32 hospitals and cancer centres across six countries. Patients were enrolled in track 1 (IO-naive) or track 2 (IO-experienced). IO-naive patients were stratified by previous tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy and randomised to NIVO (240 mg) + RELA (80 mg) intravenously once every 2 weeks or NIVO (3 mg/kg) + IPI (1 mg/kg) intravenously once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by NIVO (480 mg) once every 4 weeks, each up to ∼2 years. The primary endpoints were objective response by investigator (RECIST version 1.1), duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 weeks. Safety was a secondary endpoint; biomarker analyses were exploratory. FRACTION-RCC enrolled patients between 2 February 2017 and 23 January 2020. In track 1, 30 patients each were treated with NIVO + RELA or NIVO + IPI (clinical database lock, 1 November 2021). With NIVO + RELA [median follow-up, 48.6 months; interquartile range (IQR) 46.9-51.7 months], objective response was 30% [95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 49%], with 33 weeks (95% CI 16-53 weeks) median DOR. The PFS rate at 24 weeks was 43% (95% CI 25% to 60%). With NIVO + IPI (median follow-up, 48.7 months; IQR 47.1-52.0 months), the objective response was 20% (95% CI 8% to 39%), with the median DOR not reached (95% CI 33 weeks-not estimable). The PFS rate at 24 weeks was 49% (95% CI 29% to 66%). Higher baseline lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG-3) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels were detected among track 1 NIVO + RELA responders. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 4/30 (13%) patients treated with NIVO + RELA and 10/30 (33%) patients treated with NIVO + IPI. No deaths were attributed to study treatments. Results showed antitumour activity and manageable safety with NIVO + RELA. Findings also support NIVO + IPI as an effective combination regimen in IO-naive patients with aRCC.

Choueiri TK ，Kuzel TM ，Tykodi SS ，Verzoni E ，Kluger H ，Nair S ，Perets R ，George S ，Gurney H ，Pachynski RK ，Folefac E ，Castonguay V ，Lee CH ，Vaishampayan U ，Miller WH Jr ，Bhagavatheeswaran P ，Wang Y ，Gupta S ，DeSilva H ，Lee CW ，Escudier B ，Motzer RJ ... -  《ESMO Open》

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Fleeman N ，Houten R ，Nevitt S ，Mahon J ，Beale S ，Boland A ，Greenhalgh J ，Edwards K ，Maden M ，Bhattacharyya D ，Chaplin M ，McEntee J ，Chow S ，Waddell T ... -  《-》

Safety of First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC: A Pooled Analysis of CheckMate 227, CheckMate 568, and CheckMate 817.

We characterized the safety of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) in a large patient population with metastatic NSCLC and efficacy outcomes after NIVO+IPI discontinuation owing to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). We pooled data from three first-line NIVO+IPI studies (NIVO, 3 mg/kg or 240 mg every 2 wk; IPI, 1 mg/kg every 6 wk) in metastatic NSCLC (CheckMate 227 part 1, CheckMate 817 cohort A, CheckMate 568 part 1). Safety end points included TRAEs and immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) in the pooled population and patients aged 75 years or older. In the pooled population (N = 1255), any-grade TRAEs occurred in 78% of the patients, grade 3 or 4 TRAEs in 34%, and discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs in 21%. The most frequent TRAE and IMAE were diarrhea (20%; grade 3 or 4, 2%) and rash (17%; grade 3 or 4, 3%), respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 IMAEs were hepatitis (5%) and diarrhea/colitis and pneumonitis (4% each). Pneumonitis was the most common cause of treatment-related death (5 of 16). Safety in patients aged 75 years or older (n = 174) was generally similar to the overall population, but discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs was more common (29%). In patients discontinuing NIVO+IPI owing to TRAEs (n = 225), 3-year overall survival was 50% (95% confidence interval: 42.6-56.0), and 42% (31.2-52.4) of 130 responders remained in response 2 years after discontinuation. First-line NIVO+IPI was well tolerated in this large population with metastatic NSCLC and in patients aged 75 years or older. Discontinuation owing to TRAEs did not reduce long-term survival.

Paz-Ares LG ，Ciuleanu TE ，Pluzanski A ，Lee JS ，Gainor JF ，Otterson GA ，Audigier-Valette C ，Ready N ，Schenker M ，Linardou H ，Caro RB ，Provencio M ，Zurawski B ，Lee KH ，Kim SW ，Caserta C ，Ramalingam SS ，Spigel DR ，Brahmer JR ，Reck M ，O'Byrne KJ ，Girard N ，Popat S ，Peters S ，Memaj A ，Nathan F ，Aanur N ，Borghaei H ... -  《-》