Update on the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

World Journal of Clinical Oncology ISSN 2218-4333 (online) World J Clin Oncol 2022 January 24; 13(1): 1-70 Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc WJCO https://www.wjgnet.com IJanuary 24, 2022 Volume 13 Issue 1 World Journal of Clinical Oncology W J C O Contents Monthly Volume 13 Number 1 January 24, 2022 EDITORIAL Update on the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma 1 Medina López RA, Rivero Belenchon I, Mazuecos-Quirós J, Congregado-Ruíz CB, Couñago F REVIEW New approaches for patients with advanced radioiodine-refractory thyroid cancer 9 Pitoia F, Jerkovich F, Trimboli P, Smulever A MINIREVIEWS Immunotherapy: A new standard in the treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma 28 Popovic M, Matovina-Brko G, Jovic M, Popovic LS Role of radiotherapy in oligometastatic breast cancer: Review of the literature 39 Beduk Esen CS, Gultekin M, Yildiz F ORIGINAL ARTICLE Retrospective Study Association of cancer with comorbid inflammatory conditions and treatment in patients with Lynch syndrome 49 Faisal MS, Burke CA, Liska D, Lightner AL, Leach B, O’Malley M, LaGuardia L, Click B, Achkar J, Kalady M, Church J, Mankaney G CASE REPORT Late recurrence of localized pure seminoma in prostate gland: A case report 62 Baweja A, Mar N, Rezazadeh Kalebasty A WJCO https://www.wjgnet.com II January 24, 2022 Volume 13 Issue 1 World Journal of Clinical Oncology Contents Monthly Volume 13 Number 1 January 24, 2022 ABOUT COVER Editorial Board Member of World Journal of Clinical Oncology, Manoj K Kashyap, MS, PhD, Associate Professor, Amity Stem Cell Institute, Amity Medical School, Amity University Haryana Amity Education Valley Panchgaon (Manesar), Gurugram, Haryana 122413, India. [email protected] AIMS AND SCOPE The primary aim of World Journal of Clinical Oncology (WJCO, World J Clin Oncol) is to provide scholars and readers from various fields of oncology with a platform to publish high-quality basic and clinical research articles and communicate their research findings online. WJCO mainly publishes articles reporting research results and findings obtained in the field of oncology and covering a wide range of topics including art of oncology, biology of neoplasia, breast cancer, cancer prevention and control, cancer-related complications, diagnosis in oncology, gastrointestinal cancer, genetic testing for cancer, gynecologic cancer, head and neck cancer, hematologic malignancy, lung cancer, melanoma, molecular oncology, neurooncology, palliative and supportive care, pediatric oncology, surgical oncology, translational oncology, and urologic oncology. INDEXING/ABSTRACTING The WJCO is now abstracted and indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (CSTJ), and Superstar Journals Database. The 2021 edition of Journal Citation Reports® cites the 2020 Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) for WJCO as 0.48. RESPONSIBLE EDITORS FOR THIS ISSUE Production Editor: Ying-Yi Yuan; Production Department Director: Xu Guo; Editorial Office Director: Ze-Mao Gong. NAME OF JOURNAL INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS World Journal of Clinical Oncology https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/204 ISSN GUIDELINES FOR ETHICS DOCUMENTS ISSN 2218-4333 (online) https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/287 LAUNCH DATE GUIDELINES FOR NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH November 10, 2010 https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/240 FREQUENCY PUBLICATION ETHICS Monthly https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/288 EDITORS-IN-CHIEF PUBLICATION MISCONDUCT Hiten RH Patel, Stephen Safe, Jian-Hua Mao, Ken H Young https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/208 EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS ARTICLE PROCESSING CHARGE https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-4333/editorialboard.htm https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/242 PUBLICATION DATE STEPS FOR SUBMITTING MANUSCRIPTS January 24, 2022 https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/239 COPYRIGHT ONLINE SUBMISSION © 2022 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc https://www.f6publishing.com © 2022 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA E-mail: [email protected] https://www.wjgnet.com WJCO https://www.wjgnet.com 1January 24, 2022 Volume 13 Issue 1 World Journal of Clinical Oncology W J C O Submit a Manuscript: https://www.f6publishing.com World J Clin Oncol 2022 January 24; 13(1): 1-8 DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v13.i1.1 ISSN 2218-4333 (online) EDITORIAL Update on the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma Rafael Antonio Medina López, Ines Rivero Belenchon, Javier Mazuecos-Quirós, Carmen Belén Congregado- Ruíz, Felipe Couñago ORCID number: Rafael Antonio Medina López 0000-0002-4514-4329; Ines Rivero Belenchon 000-0002- 6217-4618; Javier Mazuecos-Quirós 0000-0001-5338-7526; Carmen Belén Congregado-Ruíz 0000-0001-8801- 0614; Felipe Couñago 0000-0001- 7233-0234. Author contributions: Medina Ló pez RA, Rivero Belenchon I, Mazuecos-Quirós J, Congregado- Ruíz CB, and Couñago F contributed equally to the manuscript; all authors have read and approved the final manuscript. Conflict-of-interest statement: Dr. Rivero Belenchon has nothing to disclose. Country/Territory of origin: Spain Specialty type: Oncology Provenance and peer review: Invited article; Externally peer reviewed. Peer-review model: Single blind Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification Grade A (Excellent): 0 Grade B (Very good): B, B Grade C (Good): 0 Grade D (Fair): 0 Grade E (Poor): 0 Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and Rafael Antonio Medina López, Javier Mazuecos-Quirós, Carmen Belén Congregado-Ruíz, Department of Urology and Nephrology, Virgen del Rocío University Hospital, Biomedical Institute of Seville/CSIC/University of Seville, Sevilla 41013, Spain Ines Rivero Belenchon, Department of Urology and Nephrology, Virgen del Rocío University Hospital, Seville 41005, Spain Felipe Couñago, Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Quirónsalud, Hospital La Luz, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid 28223, Spain Corresponding author: Ines Rivero Belenchon, MD, Staff Physician, Department of Urology and Nephrology, Virgen del Rocío University Hospital, Manuel Siurot s/n, Seville 41005, Spain. [email protected] Abstract Metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) management has undergone a paradigm shift in recent decades. The first revolution came with the emergence of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors; there was a second wave with the unprecedented success of checkpoint inhibitors, and then the latest approach, which is becoming the new care standard in mRCC, of combining these two strategies in different ways. Updated results of Checkmate-214 after 42 mo of follow-up were consistent with previously published results showing the superiority of nivolumab/ipilimumab over sunitinib in progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate and high-risk patients. However, several studies presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 suggested that the best place, and so far, the only one for nivolumab/ipilimumab is the frontline setting. The update on Keynote-426 after 23 mo of follow-up showed no superiority of pembrolizumab/axitinib over sunitinib in favorable-risk mRCC, suggesting that it should no longer be the first line of choice in low-risk patients. Finally, the phase III Checkmate 9ER trial results revealed the superiority of nivolumab/cabozantinib vs sunitinib in PFS, OS, and ORR, providing a new first-line option among all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk patients. Some phase II clinical trials also presented this year showed promising results with new combination therapies such as nivolumab/sitravatinib, cabozantinib/atezolizumab, and lenvatinib/pembrolizumab, providing promising grounds upon which to start phase III studies. In addition, other works are using novel therapeutic agents with different mechanisms of action, including telaglenastat (a glutaminase inhibitor), entinostat [an inhibitor of histone deacetylases (HDACs)], Medina López RA et al. Update on metastatic renal cell carcinoma WJCO https://www.wjgnet.com 2January 24, 2022 Volume 13 Issue 1 fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: htt ps://creativecommons.org/Licens es/by-nc/4.0/ Received: December 25, 2020 Peer-review started: December 25, 2020 First decision: September 29, 2021 Revised: October 5, 2021 Accepted: January 10, 2022 Article in press: January 10, 2022 Published online: January 24, 2022 P-Reviewer: Barbosa OA, He Z S-Editor: Wang JJ L-Editor: Wang TQ P-Editor: Wang JJ and olaparib and talazoparib, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors widely used in other tumors. However, some questions regarding mRCC management still need to be addressed, such as head-to-head comparisons between the current options, treatment sequencing, non-clear cell mRCC, and the role of biomarkers to ascertain the best treatment choice. Key Words: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma; Systemic treatment; Immune checkpoint inhibitors; Antiangiogenic; Update; Biomarkers ©The Author(s) 2022. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. Core Tip: Kidney cancer therapeutics is a fast-changing field, and the outcome of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has thus improved considerably in recent years with the introduction of different combinations of immune checkpoint and vascular endothelial growth factors inhibitors. State-of-the-art systemic therapy regimens must be addressed to be in a position to offer patients the best options. The aim of this editorial is to provide an update and insight on future directions on mRCC management. Citation: Medina López RA, Rivero Belenchon I, Mazuecos-Quirós J, Congregado-Ruíz CB, Couñago F. Update on the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. World J Clin Oncol 2022; 13(1): 1-8 URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-4333/full/v13/i1/1.htm DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v13.i1.1 INTRODUCTION Historically, the therapeutic strategy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) relied on cytokines. These drugs had a moderate response rate and were associated with substantial side effects[1]. Since then, the treatment of mRCC has improved considerably with the introduction and regulatory approval of agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways and significantly improve objective response rates (ORR) and/or median progression free survival (PFS) compared to previous treatment approaches. Since 2005, the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have approved VEGF receptors; tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib, cabozantinib, and lenvatinib; the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab (in combination with interferon); and mTOR inhibitors everolimus and temsirolimus to treat mRCC[2]. Despite the notable efficacy of these targeted therapies, which changed the treatment landscape, tumor resistance to TKI made it necessary to investigate different treatment mechanisms. In this context, stimulating the immune system through drugs targeting the so-called checkpoint pathways through the blockage of programmed cell death 1 (PD1), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PDL1), and the cytotoxic T- lymphocyte antigen 4 have been tested in RCC with successful results. As a result, nivolumab was the first immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) approved based on data from the phase III Checkmate 025 study of nivolumab vs everolimus in patients who had received prior antiangiogenic therapy for mRCC[3]. Combination therapies, based on the rationale that using drugs that work by different mechanisms may decrease the likelihood of cancer resistance, emerged in an effort to improve outcomes. The treatment landscape for first-line therapy has thus changed dramatically in recent years with the publication of a phase III clinical trial (CT) that showed three combinations’ advantage over sunitinib: (1) Nivolumab/ipilimumab (Checkmate-214), which proved a higher overall survival (OS), PFS, and ORR in intermediate and high-risk patients[4,5]; (2) Avelumab/axitinib, which showed longer PFS (JAVELIN Renal 101)[6]; and (3) Pembrolizumab/axitinib, which proved higher in OS, PFS, and ORR among all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk patients (KEYNOTE-426)[7]. This work has led to the current standard practice recommendations set in the European Association of Urology[8], Medina López RA et al. Update on metastatic renal cell carcinoma WJCO https://www.wjgnet.com 3January 24, 2022 Volume 13 Issue 1 Table 1 Results from clinical trials Checkmate 214 Nivolumab/ipilimumab (n = 425) Sunitinib (n = 422) Minimum follow-up 42 mo 42 mo OS IP 52%; 47 (35.6-NE) mo 39% 26.6 (22.1-33.5) mo ORR IP 42% (37-47) 26% (22-31) CR IP 10% 1% Checkmate 025 Nivolumab (n = 410) Everolimus (n = 411) Minimum follow-up 5 yr 5 yr OS 26% (22.2-29.8) 18% (17.6-22.1) ORR 23% (19-27) 4% (2-7) mDOR 18.2 (12.9-25.8) mo 14 (8.3-19.2) mo Keynote 426 Pembrolizumab/axitinib (n = 432) Sunitinib (n = 429) Minimum follow-up 23 mo 23 mo 74% 66% OS HR: 0.68; 95%CI: 0.55-0.85; P < 0.001 PFS favorable risk 20.8 (15.4-28.8) mo 18 (12.5-20.8) mo Checkmate 9ER Nivolumab/cabozantinib (n = 323) Sunitinib (n = 328) Minimum follow-up 10.6 mo 10.6 mo PFS 16.6 (12.5-24.9) 8.3 (7-9.7) OS NR (NE) NR (22.6-NE) ORR 55.7% (50.1-61.1) 27% (22.4-32.3) CR 8% 4.6% Adverse events grades 3-5 60.6% 50.9% PFS: Progression free survival; OS: Overall survival; ORR: Objective response rate; CR: Complete response; mDOR: Median duration of objective response; NR: No results; NE: Not ended; HR: Hazard ratio; CI: Confidence interval; IP: Poor risk. ESMO[9], and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines[10]. UPDATES IN AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY GENITOURINARY, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, AND ESMO CONGRESSES American Society of Clinical Oncology genitourinary 2020 Updated results of Checkmate 214 after 42 mo of follow-up have been presented[11]. These results were consistent with the superior performance of nivolumab/ipilimumab vs sunitinib in intermediate and poor-risk patients. An OS of 52% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 39% with sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR): 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-0.80]; ORR of 42% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 26% with sunitinib (P = 0.0001); and complete response (CR) of 10% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 1% with sunitinib have been observed (Table 1). The final analysis of Checkmate 025 after 5 years of follow-up was also presented [12]. An OS of 26% with nivolumab vs 18% with everolimus; ORR of 23% with nivolumab vs 4% with everolimus; and median duration of objective response (mDOR) of 18.2 mo with nivolumab vs 14 mo with everolimus were presented (Table 1). The first phase II in-human study of the hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-2α inhibitor Midkine (MK)-6482 was also presented[13]. This is an oral agent with antiangiogenic activity. Preliminary results on 55 patients treated in the second, third, and fourth line settings revealed a disease control of 80%, ORR of 24%, and tumor reduction of 67%. The median PFS was 11 mo. After 1 year, 30% continued under treatment, which was Medina López RA et al. Update on metastatic renal cell carcinoma WJCO https://www.wjgnet.com 4January 24, 2022 Volume 13 Issue 1 well tolerated. These results provided promising grounds upon which to start the phase III trial (MK-6482 005 against everolimus). Finally, another interesting approach was the combination of nivolumab/sitravatinib, a novel TKI that modulates the tumor microenvironment in order to render it more responsive to immunotherapy[14]. Administration in the first, second, and third line settings (n = 40) demonstrated a tumor reduction of 92%, disease control of 90%, ORR of 39%, and PFS of 10.5 mo. Again, this is promising data for the next phase III trial. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 Updated data for Keynote-426 after a minimum follow-up of 23 mo were presented [15]. OS was 74% with pembrolizumab/axitinib vs 66% with sunitinib. Patients with favorable-risk disease no longer presented a significant difference in OS or PFS, with a median PFS of 20.8 mo with pembrolizumab/axitinib and 18 mo with sunitinib. However, patients with IMDC intermediate or poor-risk disease showed significant differences in OS and PFS with an HR of 0.63 for OS and 0.69 for PFS. The CR rate increased from 6% at 12 mo of follow-up[16] to 9% after 23 mo. A new post hoc analysis of the relationship between depth of response and OS showed that in patients receiving pembrolizumab/axitinib, deeper responses, as measured by percent shrinkage of target lesions, correlated to better OS (See Table 1). Two studies, the OMNIVORE study[17] (n = 83) and the HCRN GU16-260 study[18] (n = 123), were presented to investigate whether treating mRCC patients with nivolumab initially and later adding ipilimumab in patients with either stable or progressive disease would be as effective as an upfront combination therapy. The results showed only 4% and 11% additional partial responses, respectively, suggesting that delaying treatment with ipilimumab decreased the overall efficacy of upfront combination treatment. The results of the phase II FRACTION-RCC CT[19] to assess nivolumab/ipilimumab after progression to an ICI (PD-1) were also presented (n = 46). The ORR was 15.2%, which suggests that this combination should ideally be administered as firstline therapy. However, one study showed the results of a phase II bevacizumab/erlotinib study in 83 patients, of which 50% had hereditary leiomyomatosis (HLRCC) and 50% had sporadic (PSRCC) advanced papillary RCC[20]. This combination proved to be very active in papillary RCC, especially in HLRCC, with an ORR of 64%, tumor shrinkage of 95%, and PFS of 21.1 mo. Finally, a phase III study (SAVOIR) with savolitinib vs sunitinib for papillary RCC with abnormal MET gene was presented (n = 60)[21]. The results showed a PFS of 7.0 and 5.6 mo in the savolitinib and sunitinib groups, respectively, with better tolerability in the savolitinib group. Initial data look promising, despite the small cohort study. ESMO 2020 The results of Checkmate 9ER[22], a phase III study of nivolumab/cabozantinib vs sunitinib in previously untreated mRCC with a clear cell component, were presented. Patients were stratified by IMDC, PD-L1, and region (n = 651). At a median follow-up of 18.1 mo, nivolumab/cabozantinib led to higher rates of PFS, OS, and ORR vs sunitinib (Table 1), with consistent improvements observed across all pre-specified subgroups according to IMDC risk and PD-L1 expression. The combination was generally well tolerated, and patients had significantly better quality of life than those treated with sunitinib. These results support nivolumab/cabozantinib as a potential first-line option for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in every IMDC risk (Table 1). The results of COSMIC 021, a phase II study that tested an escalation dose of cabozantinib from 40 mg to 60 mg with atezolizumab in first-line treatment, was also reported[23]. Data of 70 mRCC patients were presented, showing encouraging clinical efficacy with reasonable safety profiles. The findings suggested that PD-L1+ tumors with high CD8+ T cell infiltrates were more likely to respond to therapy. There is a phase III study (CONTACT-03) currently underway to confirm this combination’s efficacy. A phase II trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in 104 mRCC patients that were not responding to treatment with immunotherapy was also presented[24]. The ORR was 51%, PFS 11.7 mo, and mDOR 12.2 mo. These results are currently being studied in the phase III CLEAR trial [(lenvatinib + pembrolizumab) vs (lenvatinib + everolimus) vs sunitinib]. Medina López RA et al. Update on metastatic renal cell carcinoma WJCO https://www.wjgnet.com 5January 24, 2022 Volume 13 Issue 1 FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND BIOMARKERS Updates and new trials presented in conferences this year may establish new care standards for mRCC. The update of Keynote 426 presented during American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2020[15] suggested that pembrolizumab/axitinib should no longer be offered as the first line of choice of treatment in favorable risk mRCC. Moreover, the results of Checkmate 9ER presented at ESMO[22] showed some advantages of nivolumab/cabozantinib over sunitinib in first-line treatment among all IMDC subgroups and proposed it as a potential first-line option for mRCC. At this point, there are multiple combination options for first-line treatment and the medical community is divided over which choice is better - two immunotherapies or immunotherapy plus an antiangiogenic drug - considering that the different combinations appear to have similar rates of efficacy, and there are no clear recommendations as to which is the most appropriate for each patient. More data and longer follow-up are needed to clarify the issue and learn whether there are certain populations who would benefit more from one of these combinations, as well as head-to-head comparisons between the combination therapies approved for first-line treatment. Additionally, biomarker-based studies are advisable when several approaches are available and clinical criteria are insufficient to guide treatment strategies. Until then, taking into account the usual caveats pertaining to this practice, some insight may be gleaned from comparing CTs. At ASCO 2020, for example, the current first-line treatments in intermediate and high-risk mRCC patients (Checkmate 214[11] and Keynote-426[15]) were compared and discussed. Regarding OS data, outcomes in KEYNOTE426 appear to be slightly better at 2 years, and the ORR appears to be slightly higher with pembrolizumab/axitinib in KEYNOTE-426 (55%) than with nivolumab/ipilimumab in Checkmate 214 (42%). However, the percentage of patients who experienced primary progression with tumor growth while on treatment is more striking: 27% for nivolumab/ipilimumab and approximately half that, 15%, for pembrolizumab/axitinib. In clinical practice, pembrolizumab/axitinib appears to be the better choice, compared with nivolumab/ipilimumab, for a patient who needs a response to a rapidly progressing disease or to ameliorate symptoms, based on this cross-study comparison. For other patients, the adverse event profile of each combination would likely help to choose the most appropriate treatment. An additional consideration is that the choice of first-line treatment may impact selection of second-line therapy. Starting with a combination of immune therapy only forces an automatic choice to use an antiangiogenic drug in the second line. However, starting with a combination of immune therapy and an antiangiogenic makes the second-line choice less clear. For this reason, more data are needed on the most suitable order of therapy for the population at large and specific groups, such as high vs slow-growing disease. Indeed, some ongoing CTs are trying to find the best alternative in second and third lines: Atezolizumab/cabozantinib vs cabozantinib (CONTACT-03)[25]; MK-6482 vs everolimus[26]. Also noteworthy is the recent trend toward three-part strategies, with various ongoing CTs, which have so far provided only preliminary results, including nivolumab + ipilimumab +/- cabozantinib (COSMIC 313)[27]; and the PDIGREE study [28], which proposes the use of nivolumab and ipilimumab followed by nivolumab or nivolumab with cabozantinib. Conversely, other trials, such as the Checkmate 209-8Y8[29] and the KEYNOTE-427, are looking at maintaining monotherapies. The former proposes the use of nivolumab alone after nivolumab/ipilimumab in intermediate to poor-risk mRCC, while the latter studies the use of pembrolizumab in the frontline setting, showing promising activity (ORR of 36.4%, and disease control of 57.3%)[30]. Another field of study pertains to neoadjuvants and adjuvants, where either nivolumab or pembrolizumab is being evaluated in treatment before surgery (NCT02595918 and NCT02212730, respectively). The PROSPER trial (NCT03055013) assesses nivolumab in neoadjuvant and adjuvant use in node-positive or stage T2-T4 patients compared to observation[31]. Generally speaking, ongoing trials are moving away from sunitinib as the control arm and focus their research on triple therapies or novel therapeutic agents. PIVOT-9, a phase III randomized study, compares NKTR-214 plus nivolumab vs sunitinib or cabozantinib in previously untreated mRCC (NCT03729245). A phase II CT (NCT03634540) is studying the combination of HIF-2α inhibitor (PT2977) and cabozantinib. Telaglenastat, a glutaminase inhibitor, is being studied in previously treated mRCC in combination with cabozantinib and everolimus in two phase II trials (CANTATA and ENTRATA, respectively), and entinostat, an orally available inhibitor of HDACs, Medina López RA et al. Update on metastatic renal cell carcinoma WJCO https://www.wjgnet.com 6January 24, 2022 Volume 13 Issue 1 is being considered in several combination therapies[32]. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, widely used in other tumors, have been proposed for RCC: Olaparib for patients with DNA repair gene mutations and talazoparib with avelumab. Finally, the great challenge in mRCC treatment remains to find predictive and prognosis biomarkers. Interesting data are emerging from mRCC patients enrolled in CTs. PD-L1 expression, for example, was associated with poor outcomes in a metaanalysis[33]; but as a predictive marker, the results have been varied[4,34]. Genes have also been studied, including BRCA1-associated protein, which correlates with a poor survival[35], and PBRM1 mutation, which was associated with a longer PFS in the sunitinib and atezolizumab/bevacizumab group in IMotion150[36]. Another attempt to find a gene expression signature tool was made in IMmotion 151[34], where tumors characterized by angiogenesis-high signatures had better PFS with sunitinib and tumors with T effector/interferon-γ-high or angiogenesis-low signatures exhibited better outcomes with atezolizumab/bevacizumab. However, to date, the only predictive biomarker likely to be validated in a phase III randomized controlled trial is the IMDC risk model. CONCLUSION In conclusion, we are hopeful that in the coming years, patients and oncologists will continue to move away from a “one-size-fits-all” approach to treatment sequencing and instead move toward a more personalized treatment paradigm in mRCC. REFERENCES Gill DM, Hahn AW, Hale P, Maughan BL. Overview of Current and Future First-Line Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2018; 19: 6 [PMID: 29368125 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-018-0517-1] 1 Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, Michaelson MD, Bukowski RM, Rixe O, Oudard S, Negrier S, Szczylik C, Kim ST, Chen I, Bycott PW, Baum CM, Figlin RA. Sunitinib vs interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 115-124 [PMID: 17215529 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa065044] 2 Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF, George S, Hammers HJ, Srinivas S, Tykodi SS, Sosman JA, Procopio G, Plimack ER, Castellano D, Choueiri TK, Gurney H, Donskov F, Bono P, Wagstaff J, Gauler TC, Ueda T, Tomita Y, Schutz FA, Kollmannsberger C, Larkin J, Ravaud A, Simon JS, Xu LA, Waxman IM, Sharma P; CheckMate 025 Investigators. Nivolumab vs Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1803-1813 [PMID: 26406148 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1510665] 3 Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, Arén Frontera O, Melichar B, Choueiri TK, Plimack ER, Barthélémy P, Porta C, George S, Powles T, Donskov F, Neiman V, Kollmannsberger CK, Salman P, Gurney H, Hawkins R, Ravaud A, Grimm MO, Bracarda S, Barrios CH, Tomita Y, Castellano D, Rini BI, Chen AC, Mekan S, McHenry MB, Wind-Rotolo M, Doan J, Sharma P, Hammers HJ, Escudier B; CheckMate 214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab vs Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1277-1290 [PMID: 29562145 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1712126] 4 Soares A, Monteiro FSM, Maluf FC, Bastos DA, Jardim DL, Sasse AD, Gonçalves E Silva A, Fay AP, da Rosa DAR, Wierman E, Kater F, Schutz FA, de Oliveira FNG, Morbeck IAP, Rinck JA Jr, da Trindade KM, Maia MC, Souza VC, da Silva Neto DCV, de Almeida E Paula F, Korkes F, Carvalhal GF, Nogueira L, de Carvalho Fernandes R, Dos Reis RB, Matheus WE, Busato WFS Jr, da Costa WH, de Cássio Zequi S. Advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) management: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG). J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2020; 146: 1829-1845 [PMID: 32410064 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-020-03236-4] 5 Motzer RJ, Penkov K, Haanen J, Rini B, Albiges L, Campbell MT, Venugopal B, Kollmannsberger C, Negrier S, Uemura M, Lee JL, Vasiliev A, Miller WH Jr, Gurney H, Schmidinger M, Larkin J, Atkins MB, Bedke J, Alekseev B, Wang J, Mariani M, Robbins PB, Chudnovsky A, Fowst C, Hariharan S, Huang B, di Pietro A, Choueiri TK. Avelumab plus Axitinib vs Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 1103-1115 [PMID: 30779531 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816047] 6 Gurram S, Al Harthy M, Ball MW. The changing landscape of systemic therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an update. Discov Med 2020; 29: 191-199 [PMID: 33007194] 7 EAU Guidelines. Renal Cell Carcinoma. [cited 3 January 2021]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/renal-cell-carcinoma/ 8 Escudier B, Porta C, Schmidinger M, Rioux-Leclercq N, Bex A, Khoo V, Grünwald V, Gillessen S, Horwich A; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: [email protected]. Renal 9