BACKGROUND: Nivolumab+ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and durable response benefits versus sunitinib (SUN) with long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated analyses with 8 years median follow-up from CheckMate 214.
METHODS: Patients with aRCC (N=1096) were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × four doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. Endpoints included OS, and independent radiology review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) patients.
RESULTS: With 8 years (99.1 months) median follow-up, the HR (95% CI) for OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.72 (0.62-0.83) in ITT patients, 0.69 (0.59-0.81) in I/P patients, and 0.82 (0.60-1.13) in FAV patients. PFS probabilities at 90 months were 22.8% versus 10.8% (ITT), 25.4% versus 8.5% (I/P), and 12.7% versus 17.0% (FAV), respectively. ORR with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 39.5% versus 33.0% (ITT), 42.4% versus 27.5% (I/P), and 29.6% versus 51.6% (FAV). Rates of complete response were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN in all IMDC risk groups (ITT, 12.0% versus 3.5%; I/P, 11.8% versus 2.6%; FAV, 12.8% versus 6.5%). Median duration of response (95% CI) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 76.2 versus 25.1 months [59.1-not estimable (NE) versus 19.8-33.2; ITT], 82.8 versus 19.8 months [54.1-NE versus 16.4-26.4; I/P], and 61.5 versus 33.2 months [27.8-NE versus 24.8-51.4; FAV]). Incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. Exploratory post hoc analyses are reported for FAV patients, those receiving subsequent therapy based on their response status, clinical subpopulations, and adverse events over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Superior survival, durable response benefits, and a manageable safety profile were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 8 years, the longest phase III follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in aRCC.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved in Europe for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in patients resistant to prior antiangiogenic therapy. WITNESS is an ongoing, prospective, observational study designed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nivolumab in patients with aRCC treated in real life (or routine practice) in France (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03455452).
METHODS: This study includes adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of aRCC who have initiated nivolumab after 1-2 prior lines of antiangiogenic therapy. Endpoints include overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of treatment (DOT), duration of response (DOR), overall response rate (ORR), subgroup analyses, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Results after a median follow-up of 12.3 months are presented here.
RESULTS: A total of 325 patients with aRCC were included, of whom 38.2% had a Karnofsky score <80, 77.8% received nivolumab as second-line therapy, and 69.5% had undergone a previous nephrectomy. In the overall population, median OS was 20.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.6-25.0] months and median PFS was 5.2 (95% CI 4.5-5.9) months. ORR was 34.5%, median DOT was 3.8 months, and median DOR was 16.5 months. Nivolumab was effective in different subgroups including patients with bone or glandular metastases and those receiving baseline corticosteroids. Moreover, effectiveness was observed irrespective of prior nephrectomy and line of treatment. No new safety signals were identified; TRAEs of any grade were reported in 32.0% of patients, grade ≥3 and serious TRAEs in 11.1% each, and TRAEs leading to discontinuation in 8.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results of the ongoing WITNESS study confirm the real-world effectiveness and safety of nivolumab monotherapy in previously treated patients with aRCC. Treatment benefits were similar to those observed in the pivotal phase III CheckMate 025 randomized clinical trial, despite a broader, real-life study population.

UNASSIGNED: The current analysis aimed to evaluate the economic benefit of toripalimab plus axitinib for previously untreated RCC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.
UNASSIGNED: The partitioned survival model was developed to simulate 3-week patients\' transition in 20-year time horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for advanced RCC. Survival data were gathered from the RENOTORCH trial, and cost and utility inputs were obtained from the database and published literature. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outputs. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to increase the comprehensiveness and estimate the robustness of the model results.
UNASSIGNED: In the base-case analysis, compared with sunitinib, toripalimab plus axitinib could bring additional 1.19 LYs and 0.65 QALYs, with the marginal cost of $41,499.23, resulting in the ICER of $64,337.49/QALY, which is higher than the WTP threshold. And ICERs were always beyond the WTP threshold of all subgroups. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the model results were robust.
UNASSIGNED: Toripalimab plus axitinib was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with previously untreated advanced RCC compared with sunitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a significant overall survival advantage over standard advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) therapies, tumor response to these agents remains poor. Some studies have shown that combination therapy including an ICI appears to be the best treatment; however, the overall benefit in terms of efficacy and toxicity still needs to be assessed. Thus, we performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate the differences in the efficacy of several combinations that include an ICI to provide a basis for clinical treatment selection.
We conducted a thorough search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles from January 2010 to June 2023. R 4.4.2 and STATA 16.0 were used to analyze data; hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results.
An indirect comparison showed that nivolumab plus cabozantinib and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib were the most effective treatments for progression-free survival (PFS), with no significant differences between the two interventions (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.96-1.78; P=0.08); rank probability showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib had a 57.1% chance of being the preferred treatment. In the absence of indirect comparisons between pembrolizumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (40.2%) was the best treatment option for overall survival (OS). Compared to pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.65; P=0.02) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.00-0.78; P<0.001) had a lower incidence of overall adverse events (AEs).
Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib and pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in the highest PFS and OS rates, respectively. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib may be the best option when AEs are a concern.
https://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY202410078.

UNASSIGNED: En bloc removal of the kidney with tumor thrombus excision in a multidisciplinary team remains the standard treatment for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with tumor thrombus extension. In order to minimize the hemodynamic impact of the surgical blood loss, intraoperative cell salvage (IOCS) techniques can decrease the need for allogeneic blood and prevent blood transfusion related complications.
UNASSIGNED: In this article, we evaluated the safety of IOCS during radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy under cardiopulmonary bypass with or without deep hypothermic circulatory arrest.
UNASSIGNED: In this retrospective comparative multicenter analysis, clinical characteristics of 27 consecutive patients who underwent surgery with or without IOCS between 2012 and 2022 in three referral care units were collected into a database. The need for an allogenic blood transfusion (ABT) was also recorded, defined as any transfusion that occurred either intraoperatively or during the hospital stay.
UNASSIGNED: The need for ABT in the cell saver arm was significantly smaller due to the reinfusion of rescued blood (p < 0.015). In multivariate analysis, no cell saver usage was an independent predictor for complications ⩾3 Clavien 3a [odds ratio (OR) 18.71, 95% CI 1.056-331.703, p = 0.046]. No usage of IOCS was an independent predictor for a lower risk of death (OR 0.277, 95% CI 0.062-0.825, p = 0.024). During follow-up, patients who received salvaged blood did not experience an increased risk for developing local recurrence or distant metastases.
UNASSIGNED: Transfusion of autologous blood is safe and can be using during nephrectomy and thrombectomy for advanced RCC.
Role of intraoperative cell salvage techniques in the management of renal tumors with advanced caval extension En bloc removal of the kidney with tumor thrombus excision in a multidisciplinary team remains the standard treatment for RCC with tumor thrombus extension. Intraoperative cell salvage techniques (IOCS) can decrease the need for allogeneic blood and prevent blood transfusion related complications. In this article we demonstrated that transfusion of autologous blood is safe and can be using during nephrectomy and thrombectomy for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) combination therapy (NIVO + IPI) compared with the sunitinib (SUN) therapy for Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the perspective of a Japanese health insurance payer.
METHODS: A lifetime horizon was applied, and 2% per annum was set as the discount rate. The threshold was set as $ 75 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For the analytical method, we used a partitioned survival analysis model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated by dividing incremental costs by incremental QALYs. Progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death were set as health states. Additionally, cost parameters and utility weights were set as key parameters. We set the intermediate/poor-risk population as the base case. Scenario analysis was conducted for the intention-to-treat population and the favorable risk population. Furthermore, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted for each population.
RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the QALYs of NIVO + IPI and SUN were 4.32 and 2.99, respectively. NIVO + IPI conferred 1.34 additional QALYs. Meanwhile, the total costs in the NIVO + IPI and SUN were $692 288 and $475 481, respectively. As a result, the ICER of NIVO + IPI compared with SUN was estimated to be $162 243 per QALY gained. The parameter that greatly affected the ICER was the utility weight of progression-free survival in NIVO + IPI.
CONCLUSIONS: NIVO + IPI for advanced renal cell carcinoma seems to be not cost-effective compared with the SUN in the Japanese healthcare system.

Nearly 30% of new renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cases are diagnosed at an advanced or metastatic stage. Recent approvals of immunotherapies (IO) have significantly impacted patient care, but real-world outcomes of these treatments have not been widely evaluated.
Eligible physicians abstracted demographic and clinical data from patient medical records for patients with advanced clear and non-clear cell RCC (aRCC) who initiated treatment between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariate Cox regression model was developed to assess the impact of treatment category on clinical outcomes while controlling for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, histology, and other patient characteristics.
A total of 498 patients were included (201 from US, 62 from Canada, 58 from UK, 59 from France, 58 from Germany, 60 from Spain). Of these, 250 received tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy, 197 received immunotherapy (IO) combination (119 IO+TKI, 78 IO+IO), and 32 received IO monotherapy as first-line treatment for aRCC; 19 patients received various other regimens. 16% of patients had a favorable IMDC risk score. Based on results of multivariable Cox regression, PFS (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.50 [0.36-0.72]) (P < .001) and time to next treatment (TTNT) were significantly longer (HR [95% CI]: 0.54 [0.39-0.73]) (P < .001) for patients treated with IO combination versus TKI monotherapy. IO combination had a numerically reduced, but statistically insignificant, risk of death versus TKI monotherapy (HR: 0.66; P = .114). IO+TKI combination was associated with significantly longer PFS and reduced risk of progression (HR: 0.52; P = .04) versus IO+IO combination; similar results were observed for TTNT (HR: 0.57; P = .03).
Our evaluation of real-world treatment outcomes in aRCC revealed that IO + TKI combination is associated with improved PFS and prolonged TTNT compared with TKI monotherapy and IO+IO combination.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors are standard treatments for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This phase III RENOTORCH study compared the efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for the first-line treatment of patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC.
METHODS: Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk unresectable or metastatic RCC were randomized in a ratio of 1 : 1 to receive toripalimab (240 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily) or sunitinib [50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle) or 2 weeks (3-week cycle)]. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). The secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.
RESULTS: A total of 421 patients were randomized to receive toripalimab plus axitinib (n = 210) or sunitinib (n = 211). With a median follow-up of 14.6 months, toripalimab plus axitinib significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 35% compared with sunitinib as assessed by an IRC [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.86; P = 0.0028]. The median PFS was 18.0 months in the toripalimab-axitinib group, whereas it was 9.8 months in the sunitinib group. The IRC-assessed ORR was significantly higher in the toripalimab-axitinib group compared with the sunitinib group (56.7% versus 30.8%; P < 0.0001). An OS trend favoring toripalimab plus axitinib was also observed (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.92). Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 61.5% of patients in the toripalimab-axitinib group and 58.6% of patients in the sunitinib group.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previously untreated intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC, toripalimab plus axitinib provided significantly longer PFS and higher ORR than sunitinib and had a manageable safety profile TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04394975.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of advanced urothelial (aUC) and renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), biomarkers such as PD-1 and PD-L1 are not robust prognostic markers for immunotherapy (IO) response. Previously, a significant association between IO and a change in splenic volume (SV) was described for several tumour entities. To the best of our knowledge, this study presents the first correlation of SV to IO in aUC and aRCC.
METHODS: All patients with aUC (05/2017-10/2021) and aRCC (01/2012-05/2022) treated with IO at our academic centre were included. SV was measured at baseline, 3 and 9 months after initiation of IO using an in-house developed convolutional neural network-based spleen segmentation method. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression models for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used.
RESULTS: In total, 35 patients with aUC and 30 patients with aRCC were included in the analysis. Lower SV at the three-month follow-up was significantly associated with improved OS in the aRCC group.
CONCLUSIONS: We describe a new, innovative artificial intelligence-based approach of a radiological surrogate marker for IO response in aUC and aRCC which presents a promising new predictive imaging marker. The data presented implicate improved OS with lower follow-up SV in patients with aRCC.

In metastatic renal clear cell carcinoma (ccRCC), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and immune checkpoint are 2 main therapeutic targets. We investigated the impact of duration exposure to antiangiogenic on immunotherapy clinical outcomes in metastatic ccRCC.
Patients from NIVOREN trial who received nivolumab after only 1 prior antiangiogenic therapy were included. Response rate, clinical benefit, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were prospectively analyzed depending on the duration of the first line (< 6 months, ≥6 months) and exploratory in patients with long first line exposure (≥18 months). The circulating levels of 8 plasma proteins and cytokines at baseline were collected and compared according to first line antiangiogenic duration.
Among 354 patients, 127 (36%) and 227 (64%) patients had received first line antiangiogenic for < 6months and ≥ 6months respectively. Respective duration of first line therapy was not associated with objective response to nivolumab (20.5% vs. 23.9%, P = .50), or PFS (HR 0.92; P = .421). Median OS was respectively 16.6 and 31.3 months in the <6 and ≥6 months subgroups respectively. Adjusted on international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk, age and metastatic site, OS was longer in patients with longer treatment duration in the first line setting (HR 0.73; P = .017). Duration of first line VEGFR TKI was independent from circulating levels of 8 proteins and cytokines at nivolumab baseline.
Nivolumab activity in second line is independent from first-line duration of VEGFR TKI. However, first line VEGFR TKI duration ≥ 6 months is associated with longer OS.