PURPOSE: Patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have few treatment options that yield objective responses. Retrospective and small prospective studies suggest that capecitabine and temozolomide are associated with high response rates (RRs) and long progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: E2211 was a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial comparing temozolomide versus capecitabine/temozolomide in patients with advanced low-grade or intermediate-grade pancreatic NETs. Key eligibility criteria included progression within the preceding 12 months and no prior temozolomide, dimethyl-triazeno-imidazole-carboxamide or dacarbazine, capecitabine or fluorouracil. The primary end point was PFS; secondary endpoints were overall survival, RR, safety, and methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) by immunohistochemistry and promoter methylation. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were enrolled between April 2013 and March 2016 to temozolomide (n = 72) or capecitabine and temozolomide (n = 72); the primary analysis population included 133 eligible patients. At the scheduled interim analysis in January 2018, the median PFS was 14.4 months for temozolomide versus 22.7 months for capecitabine/temozolomide (hazard ratio = 0.58), which was sufficient to reject the null hypothesis for the primary end point (stratified log-rank P = .022). In the final analysis (May 2021), the median overall survival was 53.8 months for temozolomide and 58.7 months for capecitabine/temozolomide (hazard ratio = 0.82, P = .42). MGMT deficiency was associated with response. CONCLUSION: The combination of capecitabine/temozolomide was associated with a significant improvement in PFS compared with temozolomide alone in patients with advanced pancreatic NETs. The median PFS and RR observed with capecitabine/temozolomide are the highest reported in a randomized study for pancreatic NETs. MGMT deficiency was associated with response, and although routine MGMT testing is not recommended, it can be considered for select patients in need of objective response (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01824875 ).

PURPOSE: To determine the value of tumor cell programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as a predictive biomarker of nivolumab monotherapy efficacy in treatment-naive patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and the efficacy of salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with tumors unresponsive to nivolumab monotherapy. METHODS: Eligible patients with treatment-naive ccRCC received nivolumab until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completing 96 treatment weeks (part A). Patients with PD before or stable disease at 48 weeks could receive salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (part B). The primary end point was improvement in 1-year progression-free survival in patients with tumor PD-L1 expression > 20% versus 0%. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were enrolled. The objective response rate (ORR) was 34.1% (95% CI, 25.8 to 43.2). ORR by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium category was favorable-risk 57.1%, intermediate-risk/poor-risk 25.0%, and by sarcomatoid features 36.4%. The ORR was 26.9%, 50.0%, and 75.0% for patients with the tumor PD-L1 expression of 0, 1-20, or > 20%, respectively (trend test P value = .002). The median duration of response was 27.6 (19.3 to not reached) months, with 26 of 42 responders including 17 of 20 with favorable-risk disease remaining progression-free. The 1-year progression-free survival was 34.6% and 75.0% in the PD-L1 = 0% and > 20% categories, respectively ( P = .050). Ninety-seven patients with PD or prolonged stable disease were potentially eligible for part B, and 35 were enrolled. The ORR for part B was 11.4%. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 35% of patients on nivolumab and 43% of those on salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab monotherapy is active in treatment-naive ccRCC. Although efficacy appears to be less than that of nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with intermediate-risk/poor-risk disease, favorable-risk patients had notable benefit. Efficacy correlated with tumor PD-L1 status. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab was frequently not feasible and of limited benefit.

ACE2 is protective against renal cancer, and its down-modulation by inhibitors of VEGF receptor signaling may mediate resistance to such inhibitors.

Purpose: Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) expression on CD8+TIM-3−LAG-3− tumor-infiltrating cells predicts positive response to PD-1 blockade in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Because inhibition of PD-1 signaling in regulatory T cells (Treg) augments their immunosuppressive function, we hypothesized that PD-1 expression on tumor-infiltrating Tregs would predict resistance to PD-1 inhibitors. Experimental Design: PD-1+ Tregs were phenotyped using multiparametric immunofluorescence in ccRCC tissues from the CheckMate-025 trial (nivolumab: n = 91; everolimus: n = 90). Expression of CD8, PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 was previously determined (Ficial and colleagues, 2021). Clinical endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). Results: In the nivolumab (but not everolimus) arm, high percentage of PD-1+ Tregs was associated with shorter PFS (3.19 vs. 5.78 months; P = 0.021), shorter OS (18.1 vs. 27.7 months; P = 0.013) and marginally lower ORR (12.5% vs. 31.3%; P = 0.059). An integrated biomarker (PD-1 Treg/CD8 ratio) was developed by calculating the ratio between percentage of PD-1+Tregs (marker of resistance) and percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3−LAG-3− cells (marker of response). In the nivolumab (but not everolimus) arm, patients with high PD-1 Treg/CD8 ratio experienced shorter PFS (3.48 vs. 9.23 months; P < 0.001), shorter OS (18.14 vs. 38.21 months; P < 0.001), and lower ORR (15.69% vs. 40.00%; P = 0.009). Compared with the individual biomarkers, the PD-1 Treg/CD8 ratio showed improved ability to predict outcomes to nivolumab versus everolimus. Conclusions: PD-1 expression on Tregs is associated with resistance to PD-1 blockade in mccRCC, suggesting that targeting Tregs may synergize with PD-1 inhibition. A model that integrates PD-1 expression on Tregs and CD8+TIM-3−LAG-3− cells has higher predictive value.

PURPOSE: Both clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) overexpress kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1). We investigated whether plasma KIM-1 (pKIM-1) may be a useful risk stratification tool among patients with suspicious renal masses. METHODS: Prenephrectomy pKIM-1 was measured in two independent cohorts of patients with renal masses. Cohort 1, from the prospective K2 trial, included 162 patients found to have clear cell RCC (cases) and 162 patients with benign renal masses (controls). Cohort 2 included 247 patients with small (cT1a) renal masses from an academic biorepository, of whom 184 had RCC. We assessed the relationship between pKIM-1, surgical pathology, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: In Cohort 1, pKIM-1 distinguished RCC versus benign masses with area under the receiver operating curve (AUC-ROC, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.76 to 0.86]). In Cohort 2 (cT1a only), pKIM-1 distinguished RCC versus benign masses (AUC-ROC, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80]) and the addition of pKIM-1 to an established nomogram for predicting malignancy improved the model AUC-ROC (0.65 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.74] v 0.78 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.85]). A pKIM-1 cutpoint identified using Cohort 2 demonstrated sensitivity of 92.5% and specificity of 60% for identifying RCC in Cohort 1. In long-term follow-up of RCC cases (Cohort 1), higher prenephrectomy pKIM-1 was associated with worse metastasis-free survival (multivariable MFS hazard ratio [HR] 1.29 per unit increase in log pKIM-1, 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.53) and overall survival (multivariable OS HR 1.31 per unit increase in log pKIM-1, 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.54). In long-term follow-up of Cohort 2, no metastatic events occurred, consistent with the favorable prognosis of resected cT1a RCC. CONCLUSION: Among patients with renal masses, pKIM-1 is associated with malignant pathology, worse MFS, and risk of death. pKIM-1 may be useful for selecting patients with renal masses for intervention versus surveillance.