Treating Metastatic RCC: From Risk Assessment to Therapy Selection

Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is complex and requires careful analysis of risk and treatment options, an oncologist said at the July Association of VA Hematology and Oncology (AVAHO) seminar in Long Beach, California, regarding treating veterans with kidney cancer.

“We’ve come a long way in treating this disease, but individualizing therapy remains critical, especially in complex populations like our veterans,” said Matthew B. Rettig, MD, chief of Hematology-Oncology at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and professor of Medicine and Urology at UCLA.

Rettig emphasized 2 critical early questions clinicians should consider when encountering metastatic RCC. First: Can the patient be treated with localized interventions such as metastasectomy, radiation therapy, or nephrectomy? These can be curative, Rettig said.

And second: Does the patient currently need systemic therapy? “[There are] a small subset of patients,” Rettig said, “who go into a durable, complete remission, dare I say ‘cure,’ with immunotherapeutic-based approaches.”

Rettig highlighted the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria as a guide for clinicians as they determine the best strategy for treatment. The Database Consortium estimates survival in various lines of therapy by incorporating 6 prognostic factors: anemia, hypercalcemia, neutrophilia, thrombocytosis, performance status, and time from diagnosis to treatment. 

These criteria classify patients into favorable, intermediate, or poor risk categories that can guide first-line systemic therapy. The criteria also provide estimates of median survival. 

Rettig noted a “huge percentage” of veterans mirror the intermediate-risk demographics of clinical trial cohorts but often present with greater comorbidity burdens: “That plays into whether we treat and how we treat,” he said.

Rettig highlighted kidney cancer guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and noted that several trials examined first-line use of combinations of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and checkpoint inhibitors. 

There’s a general theme in the findings, he said: “You have OS (overall survival) and PFS (progression-free survival) benefit in the intermediate/poor risk group, but only PFS benefit in the patients who have favorable-risk disease. And you see higher objective response rates with the combinations.

“If you have a patient who's highly symptomatic or has an organ system threatened by a metastasis, you'd want to use a combination that elicits a higher objective response rate,” Rettig added.

A TKI is going to be the most appropriate second-line therapy for patients who received a prior checkpoint inhibitor, Rettig said.

“Don't change to another checkpoint inhibitor,” he said. “We have enough phase 3 data that indicates checkpoint inhibitors are no longer really adding to benefit once they’ve had a checkpoint inhibitor.”

Rettig said to even consider checkpoint inhibitors for patients who are checkpoint inhibitor-naïve, especially given the potential for durable remissions. As for third-line therapy, he said, “we have both belzutifan and tivozanib, which have been shown to improve PFS. More studies are ongoing.”

There are many adverse events linked to TKIs, Rettig said, including cardiovascular problems, thrombosis, hypertension, heart failure, torsades de pointes, QT prolongation, and gastrointestinal toxicity. TKIs tend to be the major drivers of adverse events in combination therapy.

Rettig emphasized the shorter half-life of the TKI axitinib, which he said allows for easier management of toxicities: “That’s why it’s preferred in the VA RCC clinical pathway.”

Rettig discloses relationships with Ambrx, Amgen, AVEO, Bayer, INmune Bio, Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Lantheus, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, ORIC, and Progenics.

Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is complex and requires careful analysis of risk and treatment options, an oncologist said at the July Association of VA Hematology and Oncology (AVAHO) seminar in Long Beach, California, regarding treating veterans with kidney cancer.

“We’ve come a long way in treating this disease, but individualizing therapy remains critical, especially in complex populations like our veterans,” said Matthew B. Rettig, MD, chief of Hematology-Oncology at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and professor of Medicine and Urology at UCLA.

Rettig emphasized 2 critical early questions clinicians should consider when encountering metastatic RCC. First: Can the patient be treated with localized interventions such as metastasectomy, radiation therapy, or nephrectomy? These can be curative, Rettig said.

And second: Does the patient currently need systemic therapy? “[There are] a small subset of patients,” Rettig said, “who go into a durable, complete remission, dare I say ‘cure,’ with immunotherapeutic-based approaches.”

Rettig highlighted the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria as a guide for clinicians as they determine the best strategy for treatment. The Database Consortium estimates survival in various lines of therapy by incorporating 6 prognostic factors: anemia, hypercalcemia, neutrophilia, thrombocytosis, performance status, and time from diagnosis to treatment. 

These criteria classify patients into favorable, intermediate, or poor risk categories that can guide first-line systemic therapy. The criteria also provide estimates of median survival. 

Rettig noted a “huge percentage” of veterans mirror the intermediate-risk demographics of clinical trial cohorts but often present with greater comorbidity burdens: “That plays into whether we treat and how we treat,” he said.

Rettig highlighted kidney cancer guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and noted that several trials examined first-line use of combinations of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and checkpoint inhibitors. 

There’s a general theme in the findings, he said: “You have OS (overall survival) and PFS (progression-free survival) benefit in the intermediate/poor risk group, but only PFS benefit in the patients who have favorable-risk disease. And you see higher objective response rates with the combinations.

“If you have a patient who's highly symptomatic or has an organ system threatened by a metastasis, you'd want to use a combination that elicits a higher objective response rate,” Rettig added.

A TKI is going to be the most appropriate second-line therapy for patients who received a prior checkpoint inhibitor, Rettig said.

“Don't change to another checkpoint inhibitor,” he said. “We have enough phase 3 data that indicates checkpoint inhibitors are no longer really adding to benefit once they’ve had a checkpoint inhibitor.”

Rettig said to even consider checkpoint inhibitors for patients who are checkpoint inhibitor-naïve, especially given the potential for durable remissions. As for third-line therapy, he said, “we have both belzutifan and tivozanib, which have been shown to improve PFS. More studies are ongoing.”

There are many adverse events linked to TKIs, Rettig said, including cardiovascular problems, thrombosis, hypertension, heart failure, torsades de pointes, QT prolongation, and gastrointestinal toxicity. TKIs tend to be the major drivers of adverse events in combination therapy.

Rettig emphasized the shorter half-life of the TKI axitinib, which he said allows for easier management of toxicities: “That’s why it’s preferred in the VA RCC clinical pathway.”

Rettig discloses relationships with Ambrx, Amgen, AVEO, Bayer, INmune Bio, Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Lantheus, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, ORIC, and Progenics.

Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is complex and requires careful analysis of risk and treatment options, an oncologist said at the July Association of VA Hematology and Oncology (AVAHO) seminar in Long Beach, California, regarding treating veterans with kidney cancer.

“We’ve come a long way in treating this disease, but individualizing therapy remains critical, especially in complex populations like our veterans,” said Matthew B. Rettig, MD, chief of Hematology-Oncology at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and professor of Medicine and Urology at UCLA.

Rettig emphasized 2 critical early questions clinicians should consider when encountering metastatic RCC. First: Can the patient be treated with localized interventions such as metastasectomy, radiation therapy, or nephrectomy? These can be curative, Rettig said.

And second: Does the patient currently need systemic therapy? “[There are] a small subset of patients,” Rettig said, “who go into a durable, complete remission, dare I say ‘cure,’ with immunotherapeutic-based approaches.”

Rettig highlighted the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria as a guide for clinicians as they determine the best strategy for treatment. The Database Consortium estimates survival in various lines of therapy by incorporating 6 prognostic factors: anemia, hypercalcemia, neutrophilia, thrombocytosis, performance status, and time from diagnosis to treatment. 

These criteria classify patients into favorable, intermediate, or poor risk categories that can guide first-line systemic therapy. The criteria also provide estimates of median survival. 

Rettig noted a “huge percentage” of veterans mirror the intermediate-risk demographics of clinical trial cohorts but often present with greater comorbidity burdens: “That plays into whether we treat and how we treat,” he said.

Rettig highlighted kidney cancer guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and noted that several trials examined first-line use of combinations of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and checkpoint inhibitors. 

There’s a general theme in the findings, he said: “You have OS (overall survival) and PFS (progression-free survival) benefit in the intermediate/poor risk group, but only PFS benefit in the patients who have favorable-risk disease. And you see higher objective response rates with the combinations.

“If you have a patient who's highly symptomatic or has an organ system threatened by a metastasis, you'd want to use a combination that elicits a higher objective response rate,” Rettig added.

A TKI is going to be the most appropriate second-line therapy for patients who received a prior checkpoint inhibitor, Rettig said.

“Don't change to another checkpoint inhibitor,” he said. “We have enough phase 3 data that indicates checkpoint inhibitors are no longer really adding to benefit once they’ve had a checkpoint inhibitor.”

Rettig said to even consider checkpoint inhibitors for patients who are checkpoint inhibitor-naïve, especially given the potential for durable remissions. As for third-line therapy, he said, “we have both belzutifan and tivozanib, which have been shown to improve PFS. More studies are ongoing.”

There are many adverse events linked to TKIs, Rettig said, including cardiovascular problems, thrombosis, hypertension, heart failure, torsades de pointes, QT prolongation, and gastrointestinal toxicity. TKIs tend to be the major drivers of adverse events in combination therapy.

Rettig emphasized the shorter half-life of the TKI axitinib, which he said allows for easier management of toxicities: “That’s why it’s preferred in the VA RCC clinical pathway.”

Rettig discloses relationships with Ambrx, Amgen, AVEO, Bayer, INmune Bio, Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Lantheus, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, ORIC, and Progenics.