Are immune checkpoint inhibitors a valid option for papillary renal cell carcinoma? A multicentre retrospective study.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
/ therapeutic use
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ therapeutic use
Carcinoma, Renal Cell
/ drug therapy
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
/ epidemiology
Female
Humans
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
/ therapeutic use
Kidney Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Survival Analysis
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Immunotherapy
Metastatic papillary renal cell cancer
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors
Journal
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
ISSN: 1879-0852
Titre abrégé: Eur J Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005373
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
10
12
2019
accepted:
07
02
2020
pubmed:
13
7
2020
medline:
7
1
2021
entrez:
13
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the most common non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC). Pivotal studies evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors mostly excluded nccRCC. The aim of this retrospective and multicentre study was to evaluate the activity of programmed death-1 (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors specifically in metastatic pRCC. The primary end-point was time to treatment failure (TTF). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). From 02/2016 to 01/2019, 57 patients with pRCC were included. Histology included 16 (28%) type 1 pRCC, 34 (60%) type 2 pRCC and 7 (12%) unclassified pRCC. Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors was used in the first-line setting in 4 patients (7%), in the second-line setting in 32 patients (56%) and in the third-line setting or more in 21 patients (37%). With a median follow-up of 12 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.9-21.0), the median TTF was 3.1 months (95% CI: 2.7-5.0). Among the 55 patients evaluable for ORR, best response was complete response/partial response in 6 patients (11%), stable disease in 18 patients (33%) and progressive disease in 31 patients (56%). The median OS was 14.6 months (95% CI: 9.0- not reached). TRAEs of grade III-IV were noted in 6 patients (10%) leading to treatment discontinuation, and no grade V TRAEs were observed. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exhibit limited activity as monotherapy in this pRCC population, which remains an unmet need. Our findings underline the need for further prospective clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations in patients with pRCC.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the most common non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC). Pivotal studies evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors mostly excluded nccRCC. The aim of this retrospective and multicentre study was to evaluate the activity of programmed death-1 (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors specifically in metastatic pRCC.
METHODS
The primary end-point was time to treatment failure (TTF). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).
RESULTS
From 02/2016 to 01/2019, 57 patients with pRCC were included. Histology included 16 (28%) type 1 pRCC, 34 (60%) type 2 pRCC and 7 (12%) unclassified pRCC. Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors was used in the first-line setting in 4 patients (7%), in the second-line setting in 32 patients (56%) and in the third-line setting or more in 21 patients (37%). With a median follow-up of 12 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.9-21.0), the median TTF was 3.1 months (95% CI: 2.7-5.0). Among the 55 patients evaluable for ORR, best response was complete response/partial response in 6 patients (11%), stable disease in 18 patients (33%) and progressive disease in 31 patients (56%). The median OS was 14.6 months (95% CI: 9.0- not reached). TRAEs of grade III-IV were noted in 6 patients (10%) leading to treatment discontinuation, and no grade V TRAEs were observed.
CONCLUSION
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exhibit limited activity as monotherapy in this pRCC population, which remains an unmet need. Our findings underline the need for further prospective clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations in patients with pRCC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32653774
pii: S0959-8049(20)30073-3
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.019
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
76-83Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement M.G.-G. reports receiving honoraria from Ipsen, Janssen, Astellas Pharma; has served consultant or advisory role in Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Ipsen and MSD; reports receiving research funding from MSD, BMS, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer and Roche and travel accommodation expenses from Amgen, MSD, Roche, Pfizer and Sanofi. B.B. has served consultant or advisory role in BMS; has been a member of the speaker's bureau of Pfizer and Ipsen; reports receiving research funding from Pfizer and BMS and travel and accommodation expenses from Pfizer. C.T. has served consulting or advisory role in BMS, Pfizer and Ipsen and reports receiving travel and accommodation expenses from Pfizer and Roche. C.C. has served consultant or advisory role in Pfizer, Novartis and BMS. P.B. has served consultant or advisory role in BMS, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Ipsen, Novartis, and Sanofi and reports receiving honoraria from Astellas Pharma and travel and accommodation expenses from Amgen. S.N. reports receiving honoraria from Pfizer, Ipsen, BMS, EUSA Pharma and Novartis; research grant from Pfizer and travel expenses from BMS, Pfizer and Ipsen. D.B. has served consultant or advisory role in BMS, Ipsen and Pfizer and travel and accommodation expenses from Roche. O.H. reports receiving honoraria from BMS, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Janssen and GSK and travel expense from Ipsen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Janssen and Astellas Pharma. L.G. has served consulting or advisory role in BMS, MSD, Novartis, Ipsen and Janssen. G.G. reports receiving travel expenses from BMS and Pfizer. A.T.-V. reports receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Janssen, Novartis, Ipsen, BMS andRoche; has served consultant or advisory role in Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Janssen, Novartis, Ipsen, BMS and Roche and reports receiving research funding from Pfizer and travel and accommodation expenses from BMS, Roche, Janssen and Pfizer. B.E. has served advisory role for BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Ipsen, EUSA and Aveo and reports receiving travel grants from BMS and Pfizer and research grants from BMS, Novartis, Aveo and Pfizer. A.R. has served consultant or advisory role in Pfizer, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD and Ipsen and reports receiving travel and accommodation expenses from Pfizer, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD and Ipsen and institutional grant from Pfizer. L.A. has served consultant or advisory role in Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, Ipsen, Roche, MSD and AstraZeneca. M.de.V.-B., V.S., E.B., S.L., C.S. report no conflict of interest.