A CT-based radiomics signature, based on histogram, shape, and local-regional texture features, showed an association with immune response in advanced solid tumors. Background Reliable predictive imaging markers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors are needed. Purpose To develop and validate a pretreatment CT-based radiomics signature to predict respons...

Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were evaluated in the phase III IMmotion151 trial (NCT02420821) to inform overall treatment/disease burden of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenous (i.v.) infusions every 3 weeks (q3w) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. q3w or sunitinib 50 mg per day orally 4 weeks on/2 weeks off. Patients completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) at baseline, q3w during treatment, at end of treatment, and during survival follow-up. Longitudinal and time to deterioration (TTD) analyses for core and RCC symptoms and their interference with daily life, treatment side-effect bother, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated. Results: The intent-to-treat population included 454 and 461 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and sunitinib arms, respectively. Completion rates for each instrument were 83% to 86% at baseline and ≥ 70% through week 54. Milder symptoms, less symptom interference and treatment side-effect bother, and better HRQOL at most visits were reported with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib. The TTD HR (95% CI) favored atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for core (HR, 0.50; 0.40–0.62) and RCC symptoms (HR, 0.45; 0.37–0.55), symptom interference (HR, 0.56; 0.46–0.68), and HRQOL (HR, 0.68; 0.58–0.81). Conclusions: PROs in IMmotion151 suggest lower overall treatment burden with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sunitinib in patients with treatment-naïve mRCC and provide further evidence for clinical benefit of this regimen.

In this article, we review de state of the art on the management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and provide recommendations on diagnosis and treatment. Recent advances in molecular biology have allowed the subclassification of renal tumours into different histologic variants and may help to identify future prognostic and predictive factors. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. No adjuvant therapy has demonstrated a clear benefit in overall survival. Considering the whole population of patients with advanced disease, the combination of axitinib with either pembrolizumab or avelumab increase response rate and progression-free survival, compared to sunitinib, but a longer overall survival has only been demonstrated so far with the pembrolizumab combo. For patients with IMDC intermediate and poor prognosis, nephrectomy should not be considered mandatory. In this subpopulation, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has also demonstrated a superior response rate and overall survival vs. sunitinib. In patients progressing to one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, both nivolumab and cabozantinib in monotherapy have shown benefit in overall survival compared to everolimus. Although no clear sequence can be recommended, medical oncologists and patients should be aware of the recent advances and new strategies that improve survival and quality of life in patients with metastatic RCC.

The goal of this article is to provide recommendations about the management of kidney cancer. Based on pathologic and molecular features, several kidney cancer variants were described. Nephron-sparing techniques are the gold standard of localized disease. After a randomized trial, sunitinib could be considered in adjuvant treatment in high-risk patients. Patients with advanced disease constitute a heterogeneous population. Prognostic classification should be considered. Both sunitinib and pazopanib are the standard options for first-line systemic therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Based on the results of two randomized trials, both nivolumab and cabozantinib should be considered the standard for second and further lines of therapy. Response evaluation for present therapies is a challenge.

Purpose: Mutations or silencing of the von Hippel–Lindau tumor suppressor gene accumulate hypoxia-inducible factors (HIF). HIF-2α is implicated in the oncogenesis of ∼50% of patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) but has been considered “undruggable.” DFF332, an orally administered novel allosteric inhibitor of HIF-2α, showed dose-dependent antitumor efficacy in preclinical models of ccRCC. Patients and Methods: This first-in-human study evaluated the safety, tolerability, antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of DFF332 in patients with heavily pretreated advanced ccRCC. Preliminary data from the dose escalation of DFF332 monotherapy, administered orally at 50 or 100 mg weekly or 25, 50, 100, or 150 mg once daily in 28-day treatment cycles, are reported. Results: As of January 15, 2024, 40 patients (median age, 62.5 years) received DFF332 for a median duration of 12.1 weeks. Overall, two patients (5%) achieved a partial response, and 19 (48%) achieved stable disease as the best overall response. DFF332 showed a favorable safety profile, with treatment-related adverse events occurring in 25 patients (63%). Only five patients (13%) experienced treatment-related anemia, and no hypoxia was observed. The only serious treatment-related adverse event, hypertension, was reported in one patient. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Conclusions: Although clinical responses were limited in the doses evaluated, dose exploration halted prematurely, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of DFF332. Further investigation is required to establish a recommended dose regimen, assess its efficacy and safety, and evaluate its full potential as a partner in combination studies.