
==== Front
Med Sci (Basel)
Med Sci (Basel)
medsci
Medical Sciences
2076-3271
MDPI

10.3390/medsci12030048
medsci-12-00048
Commentary
Sunitinib in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma with Favorable Risk: Be Aware of PD-L1 Expression
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7357-0392
Tsimafeyeu Ilya
Torres Antoni Academic Editor
Bureau for Cancer Research—BUCARE, 526 W 158th Str., New York, NY 10032, USA; tsimafeyeu@gmail.com
13 9 2024
9 2024
12 3 4815 8 2024
06 9 2024
10 9 2024
© 2024 by the author.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has advanced significantly with first-line immunotargeted therapy combinations. However, no statistically significant differences were observed in the cohort of patients with favorable risk and some oncologists continue to use sunitinib in these patients. PD-L1 expression has emerged as a negative prognostic factor in RCC, particularly in sunitinib-treated patients, where higher PD-L1 levels are linked to worse outcomes. This article discusses the potential risks associated with the use of sunitinib in PD-L1-positive patients.

metastic renal cell carcinoma
first-line therapy
sunitinib
immunotargeted therapy
PD-L1 expression
favorable IMDC risk
There was no funding associated with this article.
==== Body
pmcProgress in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is evident: first-line dual immunotherapy and immunotargeted therapy have made significant contributions. Effective subsequent lines address the initial shortcomings, making the therapies more universal and suitable for any patient. Five combinations have been approved by regulatory agencies in various countries based on randomized phase 3 trials comparing their efficacy to sunitinib (CheckMate 214 [1], KEYNOTE-426 [2], Javelin Renal 101 [3], CheckMate 9ER [4], and CLEAR [5]). In their latest article, R. Motzer et al. published their final overall survival (OS) results for patients with metastatic RCC treated with first-line lenvatinib and pembrolizumab in the CLEAR study [5]. Overall, the OS results were significantly better in the immunotargeted therapy group compared to sunitinib (HR = 0.79). However, no statistically significant differences were observed in the cohort of patients with favorable risk (HR = 0.94). Similar findings have been reported with other combinations, leading many experts to believe that sunitinib can be used as a first-line therapy option in patients with favorable or very favorable risk, with its disadvantages mitigated by subsequent lines of therapy, thereby not worsening survival [6]. Given that the studies were designed to demonstrate differences in the OS or even progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat population, this idea may be controversial. It is unknown how the risk groups, including those with favorable risk, were balanced for other factors such as PD-L1 expression. Since PD-L1 positivity was used in some of the trials, this heterogeneity could have influenced the results. PD-L1 expression on tumor tissue has been reported in 25–60% of patients, depending on the assay used [7]. Generally, PD-L1 expression has been identified as a negative prognostic factor in metastatic RCC [8]. Additionally, high PD-L1 levels are associated with unfavorable outcomes for tyrosine kinase inhibitors [9]. Therefore, combining an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibody with targeted therapy leverages several potentially synergistic mechanisms.

Among these trials, only one positive study, Javelin Renal 101, was specifically designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of immunotargeted therapy in a population of patients expressing PD-L1. However, all other studies included between 22% and 63% of patients with immunohistochemical PD-L1 expression, assessed using different antibody clones (DAKO 28-8 [10,11], DAKO 22C3 [12,13], and Ventana SP263 [14]) and various models (expression on tumor and/or immune cells). The study and control arms were well balanced for PD-L1 expression in the ITT population. Fortunately, subgroup analyses showed an approximately equal efficacy of the new combinations in both PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative patients, indicating that verifying PD-L1 status before initiating immunotherapy is unnecessary [10,11,12,13,14].

However, this is not the case for sunitinib. Previously, in the randomized phase 3 COMPARTZ trial, the authors demonstrated a statistically significant association between PD-L1 expression and worse OS outcomes in first-line sunitinib therapy. The median OS was 15.3 months in PD-L1-positive and 27.8 months in PD-L1-negative cohorts [15]. In a multivariate analysis, PD-L1 expression was identified as an independent prognostic indicator of poor OS.

The same trend was observed in immunotherapy trials where sunitinib was studied as a control (Table 1). In the CheckMate 214 trial, the median PFS and OS were two-fold higher in PD-L1-negative patients compared to PD-L1-positive patients treated with sunitinib [10]. Specifically, the median OS was 42.22 and 23.88 months, respectively. Similarly, in the KEYNOTE 426 study, patients with PD-L1 expression had a significantly shorter OS in the sunitinib group (p = 0.025) [13]. Negative associations between PD-L1 expression and PFS were also observed in the Javelin Renal 101 (p = 0.0037) and CheckMate 9ER (p = 0.00045) trials [11,14]. In the CLEAR study, patients with CPS < 1 showed a trend towards a longer PFS in the sunitinib arm (p = 0.067) [12]. Biomolecular analysis revealed that PD-L1-positive tumors were enriched in immune/proliferative, proliferative, and stromal/proliferative clusters. These mixed signatures were associated with a worse outcome with sunitinib and a worse prognosis. Finally, in the IMmotion151 study, despite its negative outcome, it was observed that patients in the sunitinib group with PD-L1 expression had a reduced PFS, particularly when PD-L1 expression was associated with the sarcomatoid features, with a median of 8.4 months in the ITT population compared to 5.6 months in the cohort with PD-L1-positive sarcomatoid RCC [16].

As a conclusion, it should be noted that multiple studies have shown a reduced efficacy of sunitinib in patients with PD-L1 expression. This suggests that PD-L1 expression could be a negative predictive factor for sunitinib treatment, aligning with broader findings that PD-L1 positivity is associated with poorer outcomes in metastatic RCC. Secondly, there are limited data on the impact of PD-L1 status across different IMDC risk groups. Despite the recognition of PD-L1 as a negative biomarker, there remains limited evidence on how PD-L1 status influences the activity of sunitinib in patients with favorable risk. Although there is currently no strong evidence supporting the use of PD-L1 alone as a biomarker for sunitinib treatment in metastatic RCC in daily practice, it is crucial to exercise caution in asserting that sunitinib can be safely administered in groups with favorable risk. These patients may still express PD-L1, potentially compromising the effectiveness of targeted therapy. This complexity underscores the need for more nuanced and personalized approaches to RCC treatment, incorporating a broader range of biomarkers and patient characteristics to guide therapy decisions more effectively. Moreover, future research should focus on elucidating the role of PD-L1 and other potential biomarkers in predicting responses to targeted and immunotherapies across diverse patient populations. This would enhance our ability to tailor treatments to individual patients, maximizing efficacy and improving the overall outcomes in metastatic RCC.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

medsci-12-00048-t001_Table 1 Table 1 Efficacy of sunitinib depending on PD-L1 expression in randomized trials of first-line therapy for metastatic clear cell RCC.

Study	PFS
Median, Months	OS
Median, Months	
	PD-L1
Negative	PD-L1
Positive	p	PD-L1
Negative	PD-L1
Positive	p	
CheckMate 214 [10]	11.27	5.72	NR	42.22	23.85	NR	
KEYNOTE 426 [13]	NR	NR	NS	NR	NR	0.025
(PD-L1 expression was negatively associated with the OS)	
Javelin Renal 101 [14]	11.1	8.2	0.0037	NR	36.2	NR	
CheckMate 9ER [11]	NR	NR	0.00045
(PD-L1 expression was negatively associated with the PFS)	NR	NR	NR	
CLEAR [12]	NR	NR	0.067	NR	NR	NR	
IMmotion151 [16,17]	8.4	5.6	NR	NR	31.6	NR	
PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; NR, not reported; NS, non-significant; and p, p-value.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
==== Refs
References

1. Motzer R.J. Tannir N.M. McDermott D.F. Aren Frontera O. Melichar B. Choueiri T.K. Plimack E.R. Barthélémy P. Porta C. George S. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 378 1277 1290 10.1056/NEJMoa1712126 29562145
2. Rini B.I. Plimack E.R. Stus V. Gafanov R. Waddell T. Nosov D. Pouliot F. Alekseev B. Soulieres D. Melichar B. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma: 5-year analysis of KEYNOTE-426 J. Clin. Oncol. 2023 41 (Suppl. 17) LBA4501 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.17_suppl.LBA4501
3. Motzer R.J. Penkov K. Uemura H. Campbell M.T. Kollmannsberger C.K. Lee J.-L. Venugopal B. Eertwegh A.V.D. Negrier S. Gurney H. Avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib in patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Final overall survival (OS) analysis from the JAVELIN Renal 101 phase 3 trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2024 42 4508 10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.4508
4. Powles T. Burotto M. Escudier B. Apolo A. Bourlon M. Shah A. Suárez C. Porta C. Barrios C. Richardet M. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: Extended follow-up from the phase III randomised CheckMate 9ER trial ESMO Open 2024 9 102994 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.102994 38642472
5. Motzer R.J. Porta C. Eto M. Powles T. Grünwald V. Hutson T.E. Alekseev B. Rha S.Y. Merchan J. Goh J.C. Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study J. Clin. Oncol. 2024 42 1222 1228 10.1200/JCO.23.01569 38227898
6. Powles T. Albiges L. Bex A. Comperat E. Grünwald V. Kanesvaran R. Kitamura H. McKay R. Porta C. Procopio G. Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann. Oncol. 2024 35 692 706 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.05.537 38788900
7. Carretero-González A. Lora D. Sobrino I.M. Sanz I.S. Bourlon M.T. Herranz U.A. Chanzá N.M. Castellano D. de Velasco G. The Value of PD-L1 Expression as Predictive Biomarker in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Cancers 2020 12 1945 10.3390/cancers12071945 32709062
8. Möller K. Fraune C. Blessin N.C. Lennartz M. Kluth M. Hube-Magg C. Lindhorst L. Dahlem R. Fisch M. Eichenauer T. Tumor cell PD-L1 expression is a strong predictor of unfavorable prognosis in immune checkpoint therapy-naive clear cell renal cell cancer Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2021 53 2493 2503 10.1007/s11255-021-02841-7 33797012
9. Aggen D.H. Drake C.G. Rini B.I. Targeting PD-1 or PD-L1 in Metastatic Kidney Cancer: Combination Therapy in the First-Line Setting Clin. Cancer Res. 2020 26 2087 2095 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3323 31948999
10. Motzer R.J. Choueiri T.K. McDermott D.F. Powles T. Vano Y.-A. Gupta S. Yao J. Han C. Ammar R. Papillon-Cavanagh S. Biomarker analysis from CheckMate 214: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma J. Immunother. Cancer 2022 10 e004316 10.1136/jitc-2021-004316 35304405
11. Choueiri T.K. Motzer R.J. Powles T. Burotto M. Apolo A.B. Escudier B. Tomita Y. McDermott D.F. Braun D.A. Han C. Biomarker analysis from the phase 3 CheckMate 9ER trial of nivolumab + cabozantinib v sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) J. Clin. Oncol. 2023 41 (Suppl. 6) 608 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.608
12. Motzer R.J. Porta C. Eto M. Hutson T.E. Rha S.Y. Merchan J.R. Winquist E. Gurney H. Grünwald V. George S. Biomarker analyses in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) from the phase 3 CLEAR trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2024 42 (suppl. 16) 4504 10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.4504
13. Rini B.I. Plimack E.R. Stus V. Gafanov R. Waddell T. Nosov D. Pouliot F. Alekseev B. Soulieres D. Azevedo S.J. Biomarker analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study of pembrolizumab (P) plus axitinib (A) versus sunitinib (S) for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) J. Clin. Oncol. 2024 42 (Suppl. 16) 4505 10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.4505
14. Motzer R.J. Robbins P.B. Powles T. Albiges L. Haanen J.B. Larkin J. Mu X.J. Ching K.A. Uemura M. Pal S.K. Avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: Biomarker analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial Nat. Med. 2020 26 1733 1741 10.1038/s41591-020-1044-8 32895571
15. Choueiri T.K. Figueroa D.J. Fay A.P. Signoretti S. Liu Y. Gagnon R. Deen K. Carpenter C. Benson P. Ho T.H. Correlation of PD-L1 tumor expression and treatment outcomes in patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving sunitinib or pazopanib: Results from COMPARZ, a randomized controlled trial Clin Cancer Res. 2015 21 1071 1077 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1993 25538263
16. Rini B.I. Motzer R.J. Powles T. McDermott D.F. Escudier B. Donskov F. Hawkins R. Bracarda S. Bedke J. De Giorgi U. Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Versus Sunitinib for Patients with Untreated Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma and Sarcomatoid Features: A Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of the IMmotion151 Clinical Trial Eur. Urol. 2021 79 659 662 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.021 32654802
17. Motzer R.J. Powles T. Atkins M.B. Escudier B. McDermott D.F. Alekseev B.Y. Lee J.-L. Suarez C. Stroyakovskiy D. De Giorgi U. Final Overall Survival and Molecular Analysis in IMmotion151, a Phase 3 Trial Comparing Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sunitinib in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma JAMA Oncol. 2022 8 275 280 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.5981 34940781
