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
Ongoing studies in kidney cancer aim to explore determinants of immune-related adverse effects and strategies for mitigating them.
Machine learning-based approaches may play a role in further understanding of how somatic alterations influence responses or resistance to therapy.
Data from a first-in-disease trial assessing a personalized cancer vaccine in RCC require validation at a larger level, according to David Braun, MD, PhD.
Blood-based markers of note in kidney cancer prognosis include circulating tumor DNA and proteomic markers, according to Michael B. Atkins, MD.
Clinical trials still have a role in improving outcomes with immunotherapy among those with kidney cancer.
Current research initiatives in the kidney cancer field include exploring anti–PD-1, anti–LAG-3, and anti–CTLA-4 combination regimens.
One of the largest obstacles to tackle in the kidney cancer landscape will be translating the research on rare kidney cancer subtypes into clinical trials.
Zanzalitinib exhibited favorable data when evaluated alone or in combination with anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibition in phase 1 RCC trials.
The investigational agent exhibited superior efficacy vs pembrolizumab in patients with lung cancer, suggesting potential efficacy in kidney cancer.
“As a community, if we’re looking to help enroll and advocate for patients with rare [kidney cancers], we need to be aware of what is out there,” said A. Ari Hakimi, MD.
Related Content