Background The Italian Renal Cell Cancer Early Access Program was an expanded access program that allowed access to nivolumab, for patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) prior to regulatory approval. Methods Pts with previously treated advanced or mRCC were eligible to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Pts included in the analysis had received ≥1 dose of nivolumab and were monitored for drug-related adverse events (drAEs) using CTCAE v.4.0. Immune-related (ir) AEs were defined as AEs displaying a certain, likely or possible correlation with immunotherapy (cutaneous, endocrine, hepatic, gastro-intestinal and pulmonary). The association between overall survival (OS) and irAEs was assessed, and associations between variables were evaluated with a logistic regression model. Results A total of 389 pts were enrolled between July 2015 and April 2016. Overall, the objective response rate was 23.1%. At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median progression-free survival was 4.5 months (95% CI 3.7–6.2) and the 12-month overall survival rate was 63%. Any grade and grade 3–4 drAEs were reported in 124 (32%) and 27 (7%) of pts, respectively, and there were no treatment-related deaths. Any grade irAEs occurred in 76 (20%) of patients, 8% cutaneous, 4% endocrine, 2% hepatic, 5% gastro-intestinal and 1% pulmonary. Of the 22 drAEs inducing treatment discontinuation, 10 (45%) were irAEs. Pts with drAEs had a significantly longer survival than those without drAEs (median OS 22.5 versus 16.4 months, p = 0.01). Pts with irAEs versus without irAEs had a more significant survival benefit (median OS not reached versus 16.8 months, p = 0.002), confirmed at the landmark analysis at 6 weeks. The occurrence of irAEs displayed a strong association with OS in univariable (HR 0.48, p = 0.003) and multivariable (HR 0.57, p = 0.02) analysis. Conclusions The appearance of irAEs strongly correlates with survival benefit in a real-life population of mRCC pts treated with nivolumab.

First-line sunitinib is recommended in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but it is frequently associated with relevant toxicities and subsequent dose reductions. Alternative schedules, such as 2-week-on treatment and 1-week-off (2/1 schedule), might improve tolerability. We evaluated the safety and outcomes of this schedule in a large multicenter analysis. Retrospective, multicenter analysis of mRCC patients treated with first-line sunitinib on a 2/1 schedule. Data of 249 patients were reviewed: 208 cases who started sunitinib on the 4/2 schedule (full dosage: 188/208, 90.4%) and thereafter switched to the 2/1 schedule for toxicity (group 4/2→2/1) and 41 patients who started first-line sunitinib with the 2/1 schedule because of suboptimal clinical conditions (group 2/1). A total of 211 consecutive patients treated with the 4/2 schedule in another institution served as external controls. Safety was the primary end point. Treatment duration (TD), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also analyzed. In group 4/2→2/1, the overall incidence of grade ≥3 toxicities was significantly reduced (from 45.7% to 8.2%, P < 0.001) after the switch to 2/1 schedule. This advantage was maintained also in the 106/188 cases (56.4%) who maintained the full dosage. Fatigue, hypertension, hand–foot syndrome and thrombocytopenia were less frequent. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events in the negatively selected group 2/1 (only 73.2% starting at full dose) was 26.8%, similar to what observed in the external control group (29.4%). Median TD was 28.2 months in the 4/2→2/1 group (total time spent with both schedules), 7.8 months in the 2/1 group and 9.7 months in external controls. Median PFS was 30.2, 10.4 and 9.7 months, respectively. Median OS was not reached, 23.2 and 27.8 months, respectively. mRCC patients who moved to a modified 2/1 schedule of sunitinib experience an improved safety profile compared with that observed during the initial 4/2 schedule.

Pancreatic metastases from renal cell carcinoma are uncommon and their prognostic significance is not well defined. In this analysis we evaluated the outcome of patients with pancreatic metastases treated with either targeted therapies or local treatment to the pancreas. Patients with pancreatic metastases from renal cell carcinoma treated between 1993 and 2014 were identified from 11 European centers. Clinical records were retrospectively reviewed. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to evaluate progression-free survival and overall survival. Cox’s proportional hazard models were used for survival analysis. In total, 276 PM patients were evaluated, including 77 (28%) patients treated by either surgery or radiotherapy to the pancreas, and 256 (93%) who received systemic therapy. Median time from nephrectomy to diagnosis of pancreatic metastases was 91 months (IQR 54–142). Disease control rate after first-line TTs was 84%, with a median progression-free survival of 12 months (95% CI 10–14). Median overall survival was 73 months (95% CI 61–86) with a 5-year OS of 58%. Median OS of patients treated with local treatment was 106 months (95% CI 78–204) with a 5-year overall survival of 75%. On multivariable analysis, nephrectomy (HR 5.31; 95%CI 2.36–11.92; p<0.0001), Memorial Sloan Kettering/International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium prognostic score (HR 1.45, 95% CI 0.94–2.23 for intermediate vs good vs risk; HR 2.76 95%, CI 1.43–5.35 for poor vs good risk p = 0.0099) and pancreatic local treatment (HR 0.48; 95%CI 0.30–0.78 p = 0.0029) were associated with overall survival. Difference in median OS between patients with PM and that reported in a matched-control group of mRCC patients with extrapancreatic metastases was statistically significant (p < .0001). Pancreatic metastases from renal cell carcinoma usually occur years after nephrectomy, are associated with an indolent behavior and a prolonged survival. Targeted therapies and locoregional approaches are active and achieve high disease control rate.

Study Type – Therapy (retrospective cohort) Level of Evidence 2b What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Various targeted agents with differing mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles have now been approved for the treatment of advanced RCC. However, the optimal use of these agents remains a challenge. Since the approval of sorafenib and sunitinib, many patients have been treated with these two tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in sequence, with current evidence suggesting that this approach is associated with continued clinical benefit, with limited or no cross‐resistance between the two agents. The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, everolimus, has been shown to be as effective after two TKIs as it is after one TKI, emphasizing the importance of understanding the optimal TKI sequence before switching to an mTOR inhibitor, to provide patients with the longest progression‐free survival (PFS) benefit. This retrospective analysis of 189 patients treated sequentially with sorafenib (800 mg/day) and sunitinib (50 mg/day; 4 weeks on 2 weeks off) showed that initial therapy with either agent was associated with similar PFS benefits (median PFS 8.4 months [sorafenib] vs 7.8 months [sunitinib]; HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78–1.40; P = 0.758). However, patients treated with sorafenib followed by sunitinib (SoSu) appeared to derive a greater PFS benefit than those treated with SuSo (median PFS with second TKI: 7.9 months [SoSu] vs 4.2 months [SuSo]; HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39–0.74; P < 0.001). Consistent with previous studies, these findings suggest that sequential TKI therapy is associated with continued clinical benefit and that SoSu may result in a longer PFS than SuSo. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a retrospective, multicentre, cohort analysis to assess the sequential use of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sorafenib and sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records of 189 patients with renal‐cell carcinoma (RCC) who were treated with sorafenib and sunitinib sequentially between March 2004 and April 2009 at 12 Italian study centres were analysed. Patients were treated under European Expanded Access Programmes or, following market approval, in general clinical practice. Interventions were sorafenib (800 mg/day) and sunitinib (50 mg every day; 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off). Progression‐free survival (PFS) during treatment with the first and second TKI was evaluated. RESULTS: In all, 99 patients were treated with sunitinib followed by sorafenib (SuSo) and 90 were treated with sorafenib followed by sunitinib (SoSu); 104 (55%) patients had received prior systemic therapy, mostly with cytokines. The median (range) PFS on the first TKI was similar between treatment groups [sorafenib 8.4 (1.1–28.9) months; sunitinib 7.8 (0.5–30.4) months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–1.40, P = 0.758]. Multivariate analysis showed that good Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center status was associated with increased PFS. After the second TKI, patients in the SoSu group had a longer median PFS than those in the SuSo group (7.9 months vs 4.2 months, respectively; HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39–0.74, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed only treatment and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (and not age, gender, study centre or previous treatment) were significantly associated with duration of PFS. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a limited cross‐resistance between sorafenib and sunitinib and that the sequence SoSu may result in a longer combined PFS than SuSo. This is the largest retrospective study to date, though its findings are limited in part by the retrospective nature.

Preclinical investigations support combining sorafenib with IL-2 in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this open-label, phase II study, 128 patients with mRCC were randomised to receive oral sorafenib, 400 mg twice daily, plus subcutaneous IL-2, 4.5 million international units (MIU) five times per week for 6 in every 8 weeks, or sorafenib alone. After enrolment of the first 40 patients, IL-2 dose was reduced to improve the tolerability. After a median follow-up of 27 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 33 weeks with sorafenib plus IL-2, and 30 weeks with sorafenib alone (P=0.109). For patients receiving the initial higher dose of IL-2, median PFS was 43 weeks vs 31 weeks for those receiving the lower dose. The most common adverse events were asthenia, hand–foot syndrome, hypertension, and diarrhoea. Grade 3–4 adverse events were reported for 38 and 25% of patients receiving combination and single-agent treatment, respectively. The combination of sorafenib and IL-2 did not demonstrate improved efficacy vs sorafenib alone. Improvements in PFS appeared greater in patients receiving higher-dose IL-2.