Second-Line Therapy Following a TKI/IO Regimen for Favorable-Risk RCC

Video

A brief discussion on available treatment options after patients progress following frontline TKI/IO therapy with favorable-risk renal cell carcinoma.

Transcript:

Robert J. Motzer, MD: The last question on this case, I’ll direct it to Brian. For this patient, assuming that perhaps they have progression in less than 6 months, what is your approach to patients who are progressing on lenvatinib and pembrolizumab in relatively short order after an initial response?

Brian I. Rini, MD: I think, whether their response is long or short, I’m not sure it’d be different. I tend to use cabozantinib second. I think it’s the most active drug that such a patient would not have seen yet. As you’re aware, we don’t yet have level 1 evidence for using immune therapy in sequence, although there are trials ongoing, so I don’t do that off protocol. I tend to give a single-agent TKI [tyrosine kinase inhibitor], realizing that it’s fairly unexciting, but I think that is the default standard, and I tend to give cabozantinib. Unless for some reason, I gave cabozantinib and nivolumab up front, then of course I’d pick a different TKI, but I tend to use the pembrolizumab-based doublets that we’ve talked about.

Robert J. Motzer, MD: Thanks. Just one last question, if this patient had been treated with axitinib plus pembrolizumab and progressed, so they never had a response to axitinib plus pembrolizumab, or a very brief response, Bob, what would you go to next in that sort of a patient?

Robert S. Alter, MD: I know there are still no level 1 data, but people have started talking about giving ipilimumab plus nivolumab a bit. I agree with Brian, I think cabozantinib seems to be a very good second-line agent. Yes, at the same time too, based upon the data from len/eve [lenvatinib and everolimus], it seems to be very good in regard to a second-line regimen. We’ve seen dramatic responses, progression-free survival data, and durability. Tolerability seems to be a bit of a concern, but adjusting the doses as we have just discussed seems to be very appropriate. And again, you do get exposure to an mTOR [inhibitor] that we have not seen before, so sometimes giving a different mechanism may offer a better response in patients who failed IO [immunotherapy]/TKI therapy.

Robert J. Motzer, MD: Thanks very much for that insight. I think it’s a great case and a great discussion.

Transcript edited for clarity.

Recent Videos
An “avalanche of funding” has propelled the kidney cancer field forward, says Jason Muhitch, PhD.
Kidney cancer advocacy efforts have spread the urgency and importance of funding research in the field to members of Congress.
Advocacy efforts have yielded a dramatic increase in kidney cancer research, according to Elizabeth P. Henske, MD.
A review of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma shows radiological tumor burden as an independent prognostic factor for survival.
A phase 2 trial is assessing ubamatamab in patients with MUC16-expressing SMARCB1-deficient renal medullary carcinoma and epithelioid sarcoma.
Analysis of 2 phase 1 trials compared gut biome diversity between standard of care with or without CBM588 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Although no responses were observed in 11 patients receiving abemaciclib monotherapy, combination therapies with abemaciclib may offer clinical benefit.
Findings show no difference in overall survival between various treatments for metastatic RCC previously managed with immunotherapy and TKIs.
An epigenomic profiling approach may help pick up the entire tumor burden, thereby assisting with detecting sarcomatoid features in those with RCC.
Related Content