Immune Checkpoint Therapy Combinations in Adult Advanced MiT Family Translocation Renal Cell Carcinomas.
MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma
immunotherapy
non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 05 2023
08 05 2023
Historique:
received:
10
09
2022
accepted:
15
10
2022
medline:
10
5
2023
pubmed:
15
1
2023
entrez:
14
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There remains a paucity of data regarding the efficacy of immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) combinations ± vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy (TT) in translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC). This is a retrospective study of patients with advanced tRCC treated with ICT combinations at 11 centers in the US, France, and Belgium. Only cases with confirmed fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were included. Objective response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed by RECIST, and overall survival (OS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. There were 29 patients identified with median age of 38 (21-70) years, and F:M ratio 0.9:1. FISH revealed TFE3 and TFEB translocations in 22 and 7 patients, respectively. Dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT were used in 18 and 11 patients, respectively. Seventeen (59%) patients received ICT combinations as first-line therapy. ORR was 1/18 (5.5%) for dual ICT and 4/11 (36%) for ICT + VEGF TT. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, median PFS was 2.8 and 5.4 months in the dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT groups, respectively. Median OS from metastatic disease was 17.8 and 30.7 months in the dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT groups, respectively. In this retrospective study of advanced tRCC, limited response and survival were seen after frontline dual ICT combination therapy, while ICT + VEGF TT therapy offered some efficacy. Due to the heterogeneity of tRCC, insights into the biological underpinnings are necessary to develop more effective therapies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There remains a paucity of data regarding the efficacy of immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) combinations ± vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy (TT) in translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC).
METHODS
This is a retrospective study of patients with advanced tRCC treated with ICT combinations at 11 centers in the US, France, and Belgium. Only cases with confirmed fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were included. Objective response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed by RECIST, and overall survival (OS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods.
RESULTS
There were 29 patients identified with median age of 38 (21-70) years, and F:M ratio 0.9:1. FISH revealed TFE3 and TFEB translocations in 22 and 7 patients, respectively. Dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT were used in 18 and 11 patients, respectively. Seventeen (59%) patients received ICT combinations as first-line therapy. ORR was 1/18 (5.5%) for dual ICT and 4/11 (36%) for ICT + VEGF TT. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, median PFS was 2.8 and 5.4 months in the dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT groups, respectively. Median OS from metastatic disease was 17.8 and 30.7 months in the dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION
In this retrospective study of advanced tRCC, limited response and survival were seen after frontline dual ICT combination therapy, while ICT + VEGF TT therapy offered some efficacy. Due to the heterogeneity of tRCC, insights into the biological underpinnings are necessary to develop more effective therapies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36640141
pii: 6987630
doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyac262
pmc: PMC10166175
doi:
Substances chimiques
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
433-439Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.
Références
J Urol. 2011 Jan;185(1):24-9
pubmed: 21074195
N Engl J Med. 2021 Mar 4;384(9):829-841
pubmed: 33657295
Adv Anat Pathol. 2022 May 1;29(3):131-140
pubmed: 35180736
Science. 2016 Mar 11;351(6278):1208-13
pubmed: 26912361
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Sep 1;19(17):4673-84
pubmed: 23817689
Nat Commun. 2021 Sep 6;12(1):5262
pubmed: 34489456
Nat Commun. 2022 Apr 4;13(1):1797
pubmed: 35379845
Nat Rev Urol. 2014 Aug;11(8):465-75
pubmed: 25048860
J Immunother Cancer. 2021 Jun;9(6):
pubmed: 34172516
Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Nov;114(5):1842-1852
pubmed: 34592265
J Immunother Cancer. 2020 Jul;8(2):
pubmed: 32661118
N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 8;384(14):1289-1300
pubmed: 33616314
J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Dec 27;6(1):159
pubmed: 30591082
Cancer. 2010 Nov 15;116(22):5219-25
pubmed: 20665500
Surg Pathol Clin. 2010 Sep 1;3(3):641-651
pubmed: 21057600
J Clin Oncol. 2022 Jul 20;40(21):2333-2341
pubmed: 35298296
Histopathology. 2017 Jun;70(7):1089-1097
pubmed: 28106924
Cell Rep. 2022 Jan 4;38(1):110190
pubmed: 34986355
N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 21;380(12):1116-1127
pubmed: 30779529
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 1;38(1):63-70
pubmed: 31721643
Nat Commun. 2021 Sep 23;12(1):5606
pubmed: 34556668
N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 05;378(14):1277-1290
pubmed: 29562145
Oncologist. 2022 Dec 9;27(12):1041-1047
pubmed: 35979929
Eur Urol. 2017 Dec;72(6):974-983
pubmed: 28720391
Ann Oncol. 2010 Sep;21(9):1834-1838
pubmed: 20154303